Gun Control, the Mexican Drug Cartels, Violence and the Black Market

This is why I said that the flow on effects are not just for Mexico's gun problem.

I have no doubt that once gun laws are brought in, there will be a transition period, and that the transition period will be compromised of several things:

1) legal owners obtaining licences and registering their guns.

2) a spike in gun related crime, but also (so long as law enforcement agencies are on top their game), an increase in the prosecution of firearm related offences (owning a gun illegally will be an extra criminal charge and result in firearms being removed from criminal circulation when offenders are caught).

3) police being empowered by new laws to go after illegal ownership of firearms (obviously, taking into account the time it takes for responsible gun owners to obtain licences and register their weapons). This would be aimed at going after the criminal element.

4) Normalisation and reduction of gun related crime in the long term.

Now, here is where the flow on effects come.

When police do not have to automatically assume that a person they are approaching is armed, they can relax, they don't have to be fearful that this encounter might be their last. This would help to decrease incidences of police violence, and even police homicide. And, if you do not believe me, keep in mind that fatal police shootings in England have dropped since 2005 (and there were none in 2013), and that their police on patrol are no longer being issued firearms, just tasers. And that's not just England, Iceland had its first recorded fatal police shooting EVER only recently. And Canada is in uproar because there were 25 fatal police shootings in one year. Even when adjusting for population, fatal police shootings and the number of homicides are still significantly lower in these countries.

So, to answer your question, sure in the immediate time after the guns laws, sleep with it under your pillow at night if you are truly worried (and store it safely during the day). Eventually, however, you will find that you will not even need it, as the number of criminally owned firearms decreases dramatically, and are used less in random crime (i.e., where the victim is not known to the perpetrator).

As for feeling safe at home, install home security systems. Motion sensor lights, alarm systems and security cameras work well in deterring criminals more so that the threat of guns. The possibility that a household may have a gun owner more than likely just contributes to criminals feeling that they need guns to perpetrate their crimes. Motion sensor lights expose them in the dead of the night and alert home owners to movement outside the home. Would you want to commit a crime when your recorded and seen doing so?

 

Yes, they do. It's called confirmation bias. We gravitate towards information that agrees with either our pre-established point of view or the point of view of the groups we subscribe to, and dismiss information that contradicts our point of view. It doesn't help either that people and organisations that propagate and specific point of view tend to galvanise their supporters into a herd-like mentality. Think of people who fall into religious beliefs we might call quackery. A person, a reasonable and intelligent person, may fall into a cult because it offers them something that they need. Once people begin attacking the cult for its abuses, that reasonable and intelligent person isn't going to say 'I was wrong', even in the face of indisputable evidence. They are going to say 'I am a part of this organisation, and have friends in this organisation. Clearly these people are attacking me. I must defend my beliefs and my friends'.

Yet, every individual fails to recognise that an attack on their beliefs does not necessarily mean an attack on them personally. As well, people fail to realise that they dismiss perfectly relevant data because it conflicts with their viewpoints. They will attack the source, or the outcome, or the methodology, or just ignore it entirely. However, they don't dismiss data that conforms to their viewpoint which may or may not have the same problems. For example, for those who dismiss the 90% statistic as (correctly) being too high due to having a flawed methodology of data collection, yet how many hold Fox News's 17% statistic for the same problem of an incorrect analysis of data?

Now, there are many ways of combating confirmation bias, the first of which requires people to be aware that they do it. I certainly try, which is why I am more than happy to look at data presented to me by the people I am arguing against, and retort with data. But how many people can honestly say that they try and combat their own confirmation biases when talking on any topic? Even in this thread, how many people are actually debating the issue against how many people are falling back onto stock beliefs and immediate dismissal?

 

Yes, after first claiming it was for crime reduction and to reduce suicide and then dropping those claims after the gun ban so clearly failed in those areas, you have been claiming that it was to reduce mass killing. It reduced the already very rare mass killing to the even rarer mass killing. I'm sure the extra 1,000's of victims of violence appreciate the trivial reduction in deaths due to mass killings.

Yes, they are different, but you did not read your own link, did you? Here is what it says:

One of the limitations with administrative data on crime victimisation is that incidents may never come to the attention of authorities such as police, or the victim may never speak of the incident to anyone else. Surveys of individuals in the community provide a way of asking people directly about their experiences of crime, and therefore the victimisation rates from surveys are generally considerably greater than rates from administrative systems.
​

Seems your own source says the survey data (ABS) is more accurate.

Try again?

 

Your data is of incidents, not rates. Rates are how crime is accurately compared across years, not incidents.

Your general statement agrees with mine - homicide increased after the ban went into effect, then decreased and settled on the same trend it was on pre-ban. In other words, homicide in AUS today would be at the same rate if the gun ban had never been enacted.

From what I could find, Australia has had 9 mass killings from 1971-`1996, and 6 mass killing incidents since the gun ban went into effect. There might be more, that's just what I could find.

Of the post gun ban killings, 4 were not with firearms and at least 8 were killed in each incident. The other 2 were with firearms, Monash University (2 killed, 5 wounded), and Hectorville (3 killed, 3 wounded).

Technically, AUS and the US define a mass killing as 4 or more dead, but that's not what scares people. People think of mass killings as unexpected, difficult to explain, acts of violence against random people. And why does it make a difference in classification if the shooter is a bad shot and kills 3 and wounds 3 instead of killing 6?

RAINN is not a good source, it is an issue advocacy group.

In the United States, there has been a lot of education regarding rape, and the stigma of being a rape victim has been largely removed so the reluctance to report rape should be removed.

Yet the FBI Uniform Crime Reports show rape rates have steadily declined from 39.3 in 1995 to 25.2 in 2013. If reporting rates increased over that time, then the drop in rape is even larger.

But it goes up in Australia.

Not in the USA. It was convenient claim that guns flowed from areas of more gun freedom to areas of strong gun restrictions, but it is not true. The DOJ study "Strategies for Disrupting Illegal Firearm Markets A Case Study of Los Angeles" (http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR512.html it costs money) concluded:

“Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local — that is, in county — licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.
​

And there is a fatal flaw in your argument with respect to the USA situation. In the USA, cities with high violent crime rates also have strict gun control, yet they are located next to areas with little gun control and with much lower crime rates. If guns are to blame, why don't the low gun control areas have the same problem as the high gun control areas?

For example, why is Washington DC with the strictest gun control in the nation often the murder capital of the USA (DC has a homicide rate of 15.9), but next door Virginia with its much relaxed gun laws quite safe (homicide rate 3.? If guns are the problem, why doesn't Virginia have a much worse problem than DC?

Again, you cite incidents, not rates.

Compare your statements to mine - crime in AUS, which was on a downward trend just like all Western industrial nations, suddenly increased starting in 1996 in a bubble that peaked in the 2001-2002 period and then decreased. Some crimes dropped to below their pre-ban rates, such as homicide, others have not, such as assault with serious bodily injury which remains quite high. Robbery (as you mention) just recently dropped to below its pre-ban rate.

See my previous chart of violent crime - it is the sum of homicide, robbery, sexual assault, assault with serious bodily injury directly from the AUS ABS Crime Reports. Violence in AUS is still above the pre-ban rate.

In the interest of time (you might have noticed I'm ignoring some of your comments simply because it will take too long to write a book in response to your book) I will address the issue without researching history.

The US has a strong and powerful contingent of people who are dedicated to banning firearms. One of the major behind the scenes players is the Joyce Foundation, on their website they used to have the banner "the most aggressive group in the gun control movement" but that was removed - obama was on the board and Director of Joyce for 8 years (1994-2002). Joyce published books such as "The Case for Banning Handguns"

Senator Feinstein has openly advocated banning firearms - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY That might sound like she just means the AR-15, but she also wrote the 1994 Clinton "assault weapons" ban bill and she wrote the bill proposed just after Sandy Hook. To Feinstein and the banners, "assault weapon" includes almost all semi-auto center fire rifles and shotguns, and many non-semi-auto as well - they were all listed in her bills.

Having failed to ban "assault weapons" after Sandy Hook, obama's ATF tried to illegally ban a very popular ammunition, the M885 "green tip". When the ATF Regulations came out earlier this year, before the ATF process was even close to being completed, the M855 ban was already implemented in the regs. It was a complete end run around the law to implement a back door ban - ban the ammo, the gun becomes useless.

Feinstein and obama are not alone. And just because the US has a cultural history of freedom means nothing, the US has lost much of its freedom. The US is more like a soft police state, the President acts like a king and openly defies the law and Constitution.

If AUS wants to sit back and think "it can't happen here", go for it. So far, many on the US are not taking it lying down.

In your link, right next to the Pew data showing 37%, is the Gallup data showing a pretty constant level of ownership at 43%. One chart says you are right, the other says you are wrong, both from highly reputable surveys.

I don't believe either one. Even your link says "Gun ownership is one of the hardest things for researchers to pin down".

Data on USA gun ownership relies on voluntary surveys, and ever since the early 1990's with the Clintons and their 1994 gun ban, participation in those surveys has declined. In the US, gun owners do not trust the government and are reluctant to answer questions from strangers about gun ownership. I know gun owners who receive such surveys and don't participate, I know others that lie and say they do not own any firearms. I also know other gun owners who claim gun owners should always participate honestly because downplaying the numbers hurts gun owners in the long run.

Anecdotal data from gun purchases, gun club memberships, carry permits, gun lobby groups, all indicate more gun owners. The fastest growing groups of gun owners is women.

In the end, there is no reliable objective number on USA gun ownership.

Of course AUS does, they took away most of the guns. But AUS has a higher violent crime rate, sexual assault rate, aggravated assault rate. AUS has 2.7 (per 100,000 people) homicides than the US, but 100's more violent crimes.

 

Australia's homicide rate never exceeded 2 per 100,000 during those years.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html

 

The Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports shows otherwise.

As your fellow gun banner pointed out, ABS is more accurate than AIC. See post #78 above.

 

Name some of the supposedly rational laws that serve to punish only the careless and criminals, without doing the same to everyone else through a one-size-fits-all approach to legislating.

 

Drink Driving

If we were all rational humans that did not need laws - why have a law that makes it illegal to consume alcohol and drive? Seat belt laws - surely we are all rational and wear seat belts. Domestic violence - surely we are all rational and do not need laws against abusing ones family

And yet people have to submit to breath testing (at least here) because there are those who do not abide laws.

 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008...d-for-dui-without-drinking-a-drop-of-alcohol/

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/...h-dui-despite-having-00-blood-alcohol-content

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202287.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...fficer-richard-fiorito-dui-arrests-dui-charge

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8072/cop-jailed-for-falsely-arresting-people-for-dui/

Try again.

 

A straw purchase under the system I put forward would require them to have firearms licences, and purchasing registered guns, meaning that straw purchasers would not be able to last for long once the firearms are recovered. Thereby, straw purchasers would eventually be unable to produce firearms licences. Under your current system, a straw purchaser need only pass a background check and need not register the weapons, meaning that illegal straw purchases of weapons are relatively simple in the US.

I will take that as you having nothing to counter my arguments with. Fare thee well.

 

If it's not worth your time to provide evidence for your argument, then it probably wasn't a solid argument.

 

You think law enforcement agencies aren't trying to enforce the laws, especially considering that members of law enforcement also have families which very well may become the victims of gun crimes? All I am asking is to make it easier for law enforcement officials to track firearms, in order to curb the rate in which legal firearms become illegal weapons.

 

I searched, it was scrubbed from the internet. We are dealing with a government website that had two agendas, open borders and amnesty and more gun laws.

 

If your position is that the Obama Administration is supplying cartels, then you are ignoring evidence presented from your side of the argument, primarily the STRATFOR article APACHERAT was kind enough to post. To make your life easy, I boldened the sections relevant that run contrary to your supposed idea that "the Obama government is supplying Mexican cartels". I have no doubt that they have lots of other sources for weapons, but that does not diminish the fact that American bought weapons are finding their way down south.

The same way it happens anywhere. When a country has relaxed gun laws and limited oversight as to who owns what and where they go, it stands to reason that these weapons will eventually find their way out of that country and onto the black market where they can fetch premium prices, and the STRATFOR article agrees with this analysis. Whilst I have no doubt that many black arms weapons come from many different countries, are you honestly going to tell me that the parts used to construct an AR-15 in Sydney came from anywhere other than America? And yet, if America had stricter gun control laws, they wouldn't have bothered importing it for the simple fact that the black market price for that weapon would be astronomically higher than what it already is in Australia, and because it would be able to be traced back to the original owner.

 

well registration is not going to happen because anyone with a brain knows that registration is designed to facilitate confiscation.

 

The report of guns coming from America only includes those that are identifiable as coming from America. For instance, the Obama administration came out with the same 'guns mostly come from America' while showing automatic weapons and grenades. None of those come from America other than the weapons supplied to Mexican police by the US government that end up in the Cartel's hands. Mexican gun law only allow citizens to own small caliber weapons. You can see how well gun laws in Mexico work.

It is also a mistake to compare Australia, or any other country, to the US where guns have been an integral part of freedom. The problems in America don't come from citizens owning guns but from the problems even Australia experiences with gangs. If you take the 'mass shootings' scenario and compare it with the US, Australia, per capita, is not that far off. Just because you have not had one recently does not mean you will not have another one. The Australian gun laws, like Mexico, will not stop someone with intent to harm.

Registration is a 'no brainer'. Once registered, easy to confiscate. Those that don't understand that, don't understand the threat of tyranny.

 

So, now you admit that Australia. Good. Now, all you have to admit is that you import movies, TV shows and magazines from the US because they are popular. There are a lot of these items that do not have anything to do with guns. The fact that Australia imports movies, TV shows and magazines that include guns or gun violence demonstrates that the general Australian population does not share your views. So, maybe you should direct your "education" efforts to your own country.

It does not surprise me that you find things honor, courage, patriotism, and keeping one's oaths as hilarious. But I still fail to see where you get WWI, WWII, or any other war from my post. I was talking about keeping the oaths that we take when we join the military.

If you want to discuss what others on this forum believes, then discuss it with them. Please, limit your replies to my posts to what I post. Personally, I could not care less what Australian gun laws are.

.

Again with the circular logic. You claim that an armed individual stands a chance against an armed assailant, because the assailant may not have " the ability and temperament to aim fire and kill." Yet, there are so many shootings every day. Obviously the ability and temperament is far more commonplace then you want to believe. Otherwise this entire conversation is pointless. As far as the reason for feeling necessity to carry a gun, simply look at the crime statics in this country.

True, but it does refute your statement that "guns can prevent crime" is an "illogical belief." In at least one case, that "illogical belief" turned out to be a very sound argument. Actually, it a completely logical belief. If you were going to rob someone, who would you rob. The individual with a gun, or the one without a gun. Common sense says the one without a gun.

Please provide a source to back that claim.

 

Straight out of the Liberty Haters Guide to Deriding America.......
This meme is getting so old, it's collecting dust as it was written.
To give credit, it's almost true, but the fact that 300,000 firearms are in the US, those numbers are actually negligible. they number under 500 a year.
The counter argument about pools, ladders, wet floors, dogs, mean absolutely nothing to liars.
You are more likely to be killed in a car accident, if you own a car
my favorite saying:
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

or
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933

socialist will say anything, lie, distort facts, mislead, deny........anything to accomplish their goal, as demonstrated by many in here.
a few are snub-dismissive when you present the Bill of Rights.
They aren't just after the 2nd A, they are after the entire Bill. Think of what it'll take to secure 300,000,000 guns in America. It will absolutely require martial law thus suspending the Constitution. Funny they view climbing down the ladder as moving up

 

Any proposal that requires firearm licenses and/or registration is going to meet extreme resistance in the US. Our experience is that licenses and registration (and safety permits and purchase permits) are just fronts for gun bans. They are proposed as "common sense" measures and claimed to promote for public safety, but once enacted the banners take control of the process and make the requirements to be awarded a permit or license so onerous that they become de facto bans for the general population.

You can read this series http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/ about a woman in DC who was a crime victim and went through the byzantine process of getting a firearm in Washington DC.


There are too many gun banners who want to take ban firearms for registration to be implemented. I previously posted the youtube of Sen. Feinstein saying she would ban so-called "assault weapons". After Sandy Hook when Chuck Schumer (big time anti-gunner) proposed the universal background check, the issue was the record keeping. Schumer wanted all gun sales to go through an FFL and the FFL would keep the records, which is a problem because over the past few years the ATF has been scanning the FFL records during their annual inspections - creating a backdoor national registry (this is in court now http://patriotupdate.com/2014/04/at...tiple-times-threatens-revoke-dealers-license/). When Sen. Coburn suggested all sales require a background check but let the individuals do the background check themselves via the internet (no federal records), Schumer flatly refused and said there would be no point to the legislation without the records.

If Schumer had agreed to drop the FFL requirement, we would have universal checks today, but the records were more important to the banners than the universal checks.

It comes down to trust. You can come up with all kinds of laws and policies to improve public safety, but nobody trusts the gun banners or the govt. The banners have such a history of abusing and manipulating the system, and lying, that they have poisoned the well. That's why the gun community refuses all increases in gun control, we have zero trust in the banners or the system.

 

A continuance of circular and fallacious "logic". The culture permeates the American media - much of which is bought because it is popular THERE - proven saleable quantity and then shown here. I will say however that we seem less inclined to take such things at face value. I remember well the influence the program "24" had on the average message board member. Americans were very pro torture, citing examples from the program as justifications.

Did not say I found those things funny - merely stated I found the propensity of some Americans to try to drag up past glories as justifications for current horrors rather well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And I could care less about American gun laws - I am debating gun control in general and firearm morbidity and mortality in specific

.

But not here or in England or Europe or Japan or Singapore.................... What makes countries different - why is the firearm mortality and morbidity so high for America but almost non-existent in Japan? This is the crux - this is the vital question because if we can answer that then we can reduce the firearm injury not just in America but also South Africa,Jamaica and Honduras and Brazil...............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Have you ever thought that the answer lies not in legislation but in sociology?

Dear gods and little fishes - sorry but there are so many holes in that "logic". Common sense once had a majority of the populace believing the world was flat. What if there were not guns to use? Who would you rather be robbed by - the criminal with a gun or the one with the butter knife?
more guns more crime
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/misperceptions/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/youth-and-guns/and I have not yet dipped into Google scholar






Please provide a source to back that claim.[/QUOTE]

http://www.livescience.com/39813-gun-ownership-increases-firearms-deaths.html
OK - here is one research summary

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/firearms.aspx
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide
Do you want me to go on?

 

Go on....
For every study you can dig up on the internet, there is another study that can be found to counter it.
Bottom line.... people in America don't care about these stories of what has happened in the past.
Are there idiots out there that will accidentally shoot themselves or others? Of course.
Are there people out there that shouldn't own a gun, but they are not convicted felons? Yes
Are there crazies out there with guns? Yep
Are there people out there that are prohibited from possessing guns but do in fact have guns? Absolutely
These instances are not a factor when people make the decision to protect their families. In fact these are arguments for gun ownership.
The instinct of self preservation is greater than anything else.
People want to be in control of their own destiny. Even if there is risk.
People recognize that there are threats out there and they want to be prepared.
As long as the law of the land allows private gun ownership, the ownership stats will continue to grow exponentially.
All of these people will fight vehemently against anti firearm limitations.
These people vote and they make their voices heard through pro gun organizations.

 

http://www.livescience.com/39813-gun-ownership-increases-firearms-deaths.html
OK - here is one research summary


http://www.apa.org/about/policy/firearms.aspx
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide
Do you want me to go on?[/QUOTE]

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

really, as usual, you point out one and then include everyone. There are only a few select in high places that approve of torture. Not all Americans evenknow what "24" is. And you have no proof that it led to anything torturous about all Americans. That stance is as bad as an extremist mooslim.

ahem, didn't your police kill a nation icon?
And just what Americans are dragging up what past glories?
at least be a bit more honest:
your cause......................... ..
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

 

And yet I am not calling for removal of guns

 

However you are calling for measures that would require registration for them to be to be effectively enforced.
Registration has always been the pathway to removal of guns, and there are already polititians here that have indicated that if they could remove guns from our society, they would indeed do so.