How can people look at statistics and be pro gu control?

i look at reality of what is happening and it baffles me that so many people cant see what is right in their face.

first Gun sells are at an all time high crime rate is falling

second almost all mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"

Third when we look at Australia if i am not mistaken immediately after the infamous gun buy back (where they took every thing but revolvers an made it illegal to carry) the crime rates almost tripled.

Forth Chicago New York city and Washington DC have the strictest gun control in the Us and some of the highest homicide rates

I mean i am all for gun safety licenses and background checks but how can you look at that and say yeah its a good idea to take all guns away

 

Look at the gun deaths in the two nations (per capita) and it tells a whole different story.

Also you got a source on the crime rates in Australia. A reputable source (e.g Australian Bureau of Statistics)

 

This baffles me when you say look at the gun deaths but ignore how deaths with otherweapons and other violent crimes. People just use something else. Case in point England looking to ban beer glasses





Several sources
http://www.reasonorforce.com/2010/08/australian-gun-ban-facts-statistics.html?m=1
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012...duce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847


"Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.(*)"

- - - Updated - - -

This baffles me when you say look at the gun deaths but ignore how deaths with otherweapons and other violent crimes. People just use something else. Case in point England looking to ban beer glasses





Several sources
http://www.reasonorforce.com/2010/08/australian-gun-ban-facts-statistics.html?m=1
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847


"Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.(*)"

 

Your argument makes no sense. For it to make sense it would mean that all crime would be related to gun control laws when that is not the case.

Any range of factors could have lead to the higher rates of crime and without looking at detailed statistics from a range of sources drawing any conculsion is idiotic.

The fact is that gun violence is rampant in the US. You would have to merge all the murders with firearms in Germany, The Czech Republic, Ukraine, Canada, Albania, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Switerland, Sweden, Boliva, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Slovakia, El Salvador and Austria to get within 1000 of the US number.

If we assume that the US has 300 million citizens. Those nations put together equal over 500 million people.

The US has a gun problem pure and simple and since most of these nations have much stricter gun laws than the US. It is safe to assume that the answer is gun control.

 

statistics don't kill people

 

your arguments make no sense

gun sales are high, and gun crimes are high--seems to fit

mass shootings tend to happen at schools--this has nothing to do with the fact that they are "gun free" but more to do with the societal impact of deaths at school that shooters often aim (no pun intended) to achieve

the gun buyback in australia worked well - gun crimes fell dramatically

they did a study and found that the guns being used in dc came from states with loose gun laws. Criminals traveled to gun friendly states, bought guns, then brought them to DC to commit crimes. NYC is actually quite safe and has a fairly low homicide rate for a big city. NYC has THE most restrictive gun laws in the nation. So it's a good example of gun laws that work.

so I look at all this and say yea, it is a good idea to take all guns away

 

Correlation does not equal causation and in this case there is no correlation nor, I notice any citation

BARRRRRRRP FAIL!!!

Look again

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

See that is what is called a CITATION - when one is challenging statistics one has to be clear about what statistics one is challenging otherwise one might just look like....................

I call BULL(*)(*)(*)(*)!! Pity there is an Aussie on board eh? Yep! you are very much mistaken because you did not check your Google - or even SNOPES

And Ohhh! Look another CITATION
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

And again correlation does not equal causation

ANd now we have the game of Straw man building

 

I am betting it was from an Email sent around about 2 years after the gun buy back with all of these mish mashed stats Snopes has a synopsis of it
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

It resurfaced again after the Dark Knight shooting in a couple of American Newspapers - talk about lazy journalism! They had not even bothered to reword the original email

 

But guns give people the potential to kill eachother at levels never imagined beforehand.

 

Geeze mate - you really got to learn to support your arguments better

 

@ parker
you had me all the way up till "The fact is" and yet your own facts are obscured. Your assumptions are in good intentions but not completely accurate.

You added Mexico, Peru and El Salvador to your list.. really I was once like you parker, young, and open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values but i watched Damon Smothers YES on gun control onyou tubeAnd it changed my thoughs about gun ownership.

 

Well if you look at the post snops is one of the sources I sighted also are coments from Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics in one of the articles

So by your logic if the rise in violent crime rate is not effected by gun control then any fall in crime can not
be related to guncontrol or guncontrol will not cause a fall in crime rates. I guess the overall point is gund do not cause the crime nor wil gun controlll not lower crimes
How am I being a straw man if I am attacking people that want a gun ban because there are people on this forum and in that want to pretty much ban all guns or make gun control so tight it is (*)(*)(*)(*) neare impossible to carry or own a gun. If you aren't one of those people then I am not adressinyou

 

a ban on guns is not meant to lower the overall crime rate. It's meant to lower the number of gun crimes as a percentage of overall crimes.

 

care to explain why chicago/DC has highest crime rate with its strict gun control policy?

 

So it doest mater if violent crimes with other objects goes up as long as ones with guns go down?

 

Yes, gun crimes are lessened when you take guns out of the equation, but what he is saying is it does nothing for overall crimes, or homicides. The rate stays the same, people are just using different methods.

 

well, overall crimes are affected by a host of things, but since guns are far more effective than virtually any other weapon, taking guns out of the equation would cause homicides to be lower than they otherwise would be.

- - - Updated - - -

since guns are more effective killing tools than other weapons, yes - it would be better if gun crimes were replaced with knife crimes.

 

they did a study and found that the guns being used in crimes in DC actually come from states with loose gun laws. Criminals are travelling to neighboring gun-friendly states, buying guns, and then bringing them to DC to commit crimes.

That's why we need strict gun laws in all of America, not just in the major cities.

 

That's one of the most f##ked up thing I have ever heard it doesnt matter howmany die or get robbed just as long as it's not with a gun.

A gun is also the most effective means to defend yourself especially go the weak.

 

That's right with gun control guns get bought on the black market. Just like we have tight drug laws but drugs get smuggled in and made in the US.

 

youre not getting it. of course it matters how many people die--the whole point is that gun laws save lives. but just because the overall crime rate is higher doesn't mean gun laws dont work. so overall robberies may be up (due to a bad economy, or whatever), but if a robber uses a knife instead of a gun, it results in a stabbing where the victim lives, instead of being shot in the head, where the victim dies.

guns are effective in defense, but there are far more cases of gun crimes and accidents than gun defense incidents. so the bad outweighs the good. most gun deaths are not because the victim shot a guy in self defense. it's the opposite.

- - - Updated - - -

that's true, but then guns would be far more expensive and would not be as available. the whole point is to decrease the availability of guns. so a few well-established criminals may get access to guns, but your common criminal would not. and that's the idea. right now, criminals dont even need to goto the black market. Right now, a felon with a long history of convictions for violent crimes can simply show up to a gun show and get as many guns as he wants--and that's messed up.

 

Simple problem: they are brainwashed, can't understand 'no guns = no gun murders' and think the worldwide fall in crime has something to do with their ludicrous games of cowboys. Help them to count beyond their fingers and toes and become men.

 

Ceteris paribus!

The empirical evidence actually shows that it reduced homicides and suicides.

Guilty of spurious conclusion!

 

the articles i posted have evidence that says differently

spurious? its right in front of your face the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates the strict Gun control does not help prevent people from killing each other.

 

actually, if you look on a state basis, the states with the highest gun death rates also have the loosest gun laws.
and i've already established that cities with strict gun laws have high homicide rates due to neighboring states with lax gun laws. so that's why we need to ban guns nationwide.