Australian gun laws have no effect on murder rate

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People shoot people because they hate themselves and self hate is the source of human violence. Having or getting rid of guns is irrelevant compared to mental health. If we want to stop crime and murder we will have to begin, someday, the work of dealing with our self hate, creating a culture where we can act out our violence safely and get back to the real, old feelings in childhood where it all started. Until we realize we are sick in the whole of humanity, we will not change at all. Year by year the put downs and hate accumulate and roll down hill on our kids and year by year we becomes more mentally ill. We long for Armageddon so we can let it all out, and we slowly make that a reality by backing blindfold into it.

The ego we love is sick. Who will allow ones beloved to die? Mental health is only for the tremendously tough. Guns and gun bans are for cowards, the right and the left side of nuts.

Why is it that Moonbeam's comments make perfect sense to me; even when he is philosiphizing?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am pleased with the gun buyback. I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.

Half a billion dollars spent so people like Aidanjm can sleep happy knowing that only criminals can have guns... if that isn't a waste of governments money, I don't know what is... too bad the money could have been spent on the poor.. soup kitchens... endowments for the arts, etc... oh, well at least Aidanjm feels happy. I don't live in australia so I don't care that much.

Yea, guns are evil. I own a few.. I also own an ar15.. whenever, I fire them, it turns me into a homicidal maniac... well, maybe not Some people have an irrational fear of guns. I bet Aidanjm does

Isn't it better than 300 billion spent so people like you can sleepy happy knowing the "terrists" won't get you?

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am pleased with the gun buyback. I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.

Half a billion dollars spent so people like Aidanjm can sleep happy knowing that only criminals can have guns... if that isn't a waste of governments money, I don't know what is... too bad the money could have been spent on the poor.. soup kitchens... endowments for the arts, etc... oh, well at least Aidanjm feels happy. I don't live in australia so I don't care that much.

Yea, guns are evil. I own a few.. I also own an ar15.. whenever, I fire them, it turns me into a homicidal maniac... well, maybe not Some people have an irrational fear of guns. I bet Aidanjm does

Isn't it better than 300 billion spent so people like you can sleepy happy knowing the "terrists" won't get you?

That has nothing to do with the current discussion.

 

[Enig101]

In a way I agree with aidanjim. I hate guns. Having guns in the general populous means people can get shot on impulse. Criminals are going to commit crimes whether they have guns or not, and if they want a weapon they'll carry a knife. So from that perspective gun control is a good idea. On the other hand there is a reasonable argument in having a gun for defense of one's home. If someone is breaking into my house with a weapon, I have to say I would not be opposed to having a handgun if I could protect my family from harm.

As Moonbeam pointed out, in the end a person fires the gun, and that is the root of the problem.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows if it is having an effect or not. Without it the murder rate might have doubled.

Yeah, it's been declining steadily for almost 10 years and all of the sudden one random year it would've doubled? Nice logic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows if it is having an effect or not. Without it the murder rate might have doubled.

Yeah, it's been declining steadily for almost 10 years and all of the sudden one random year it would've doubled? Nice logic.

Yeah, something declines year by year doesn't mean you get down to two murders one year and the next maybe 3? Probably the murder rate is declining because the guns are getting too old to work. I should test to see if the 38 shells I have pre WW2 will still work on my neighbor.

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows if it is having an effect or not. Without it the murder rate might have doubled.

Yeah, it's been declining steadily for almost 10 years and all of the sudden one random year it would've doubled? Nice logic.

Yeah, something declines year by year doesn't mean you get down to two murders one year and the next maybe 3? Probably the murder rate is declining because the guns are getting too old to work. I should test to see if the 38 shells I have pre WW2 will still work on my neighbor.

I bet if you checked the source of guns used in crimes, nearly zero came from civilians that didn't give theirs up. And FYI, guns can work a long ass time after they were made, provided they are properly taken care of. There are guns pre-WWI that can still function.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows if it is having an effect or not. Without it the murder rate might have doubled.

Yeah, it's been declining steadily for almost 10 years and all of the sudden one random year it would've doubled? Nice logic.

Yeah, something declines year by year doesn't mean you get down to two murders one year and the next maybe 3? Probably the murder rate is declining because the guns are getting too old to work. I should test to see if the 38 shells I have pre WW2 will still work on my neighbor.

Guns take a long time to wear out. Like after thousands and thousands of rounds. What wears out first is usually the barrel which just causes decreased accuracy. For instance, I own a Mosin Nagant that was made in 1896 by the Russians and rebarreled in 1942 by the Finnish. It's 110 years old but still works very well and (because of the newer, heavier barrel) is more accurate than the day it was made.

 

[Moonbeam]

So there you have it, centuries of decline in the murder rate are due to the slow obsolescence of guns. And if somebody wants to challenge that we can always go to the fact that the murder rate drops because of the ever increasing paucity of victims as they year by year get murdered off.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: nCred
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4210558.stm
Seems to be working in Brazil.

Brazil actually just overwhelmingly shot down a total gun prohibition law. Nice try. Not to mention most of their crime involves drug lords and overzealous police death squads. Hell, they can go to Paraguay and get fvking bazookas if they want.

I think it's abundantly clear that banning guns doesn't really do much positive for crime in general or crime that involves firearms. It just disarms the populace. True in Ireland and UK as well.

Did you even read the article? It was about the brazilian buy-back program helping reducing the murder rate, you know since this thread was saying the Australian buy-back program made no difference.. Of course there could some other factors contributing to the decline i murders, who knows.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Probably the murder rate is declining because the guns are getting too old to work. I should test to see if the 38 shells I have pre WW2 will still work on my neighbor.

Nope. You're not familiar with I take it. Guns really don't "wear out".

If you haven't seen any very old guns it's simply because they're damn expensive.

I've seen 300 year old guns. They all fire/shoot just fine.

Like the other poster, I've got a Moisin-Nagent from the late 1800's. Has the original barrel and fires/shoots just fine.

If you're ever gonna get rid of guns entirely, you'll have to get rid of metal. The technology is too old, and guns are too easy to make. (The ceramic plastic stuff is harder to work). You can make a gun out of a car's antenna etc.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows if it is having an effect or not. Without it the murder rate might have doubled.

Whoa... beg the question much?

The facts are overwhelmingly clear. Gun laws no more stop gun crimes than drug laws stop drug crimes. Sometimes, you have to get past the knee-jerking screw-your-neighbor-and-put-him-in-jail mentality and actually work to fix the root of this problem. Which, in this case, is the desire of one person to want to murder another.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So there you have it, centuries of decline in the murder rate are due to the slow obsolescence of guns. And if somebody wants to challenge that we can always go to the fact that the murder rate drops because of the ever increasing paucity of victims as they year by year get murdered off.

Actually, the opposite is true (although I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not). While no actual statistics were kept, it is more or less unanimously believed by historians that murder rates were significantly higher prior to the invention of the gun than after. Without dispute or question, widespread democracy owes its very existence to the gun, in that the gun gave power to the common people in a way that was never possible before. There is no movement more anti-democratic than than the anti-gun movement, as its basic premise is that the common people are not good enough to wield power, but "the authority" is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am pleased with the gun buyback. I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.

This BTW is a perfect example of the anti-democratic mindset. Next, he'll complain that he'd hate to live in the country where the average person has the power to cast a vote.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am pleased with the gun buyback. I'd hate to live in a country where the average person on the street could be carrying a handgun or have an automatic rifle or machine gun tucked in their hallway closet.

This BTW is a perfect example of the anti-democratic mindset. Next, he'll complain that he'd hate to live in the country where the average person has the power to cast a vote.

Touche... Votes are sometimes considered more powerful than guns (Martin luther King?)... but yet, we give the common man the ability to vote.. if the anti-gunners are ok with giving the unwashed masses the ability to vote, why are they so scared of having law abiding folks the ability to protect themselves with guns? Looks like an irrational fear of guns..

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ajf3
Wrong! A few from a quick search... non violent crime increases a bit, but violent crime definately decreases.

You fail, correlation does not equal causation.

QFT. I was about to post those exact words.