Author Topic: HAND GUNS Friend or Foe (Put your goves on and come out FRIENDS) (Read 14191 times)

TwoTired · « **Reply #75 on:** August 17, 2005, 02:29:35 PM »

After all the Australia glorification, I began to wonder, if perhaps it really was a more peaceable place than the US of A. I had always looked to that country as an interesting place to live. And, I had really never met an ausie I did like, though my sample base is in the rather low 10’s. I set out to find crime stats for AU both before and after their 1996 gun confiscation, so I could see if there was a trend before vs. after. Haven’t found a lot worthy yet (still looking), with the anti Gun side saying its too soon to tell and they need 10 years of abolition. And, the Gun advocates pointing to increased crime trends as proof the laws are worthless and counter to promised safety.

Then I found this site:
http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

...and I started to collect data…
item     / US     / Aus
population /   295,735,134 /   20,090,437
land /   9,631,418 sq km     / 7,617,930 sq km
Land per capita   / 0.03 sq km per person   / 0.37 sq km per person
Pop Density     / 29.77 people per sqkm   / 2.47 people per sqkm

Animal behaviour studies generally show that when a population is more dense, extreme behavior examples increase in number and severity, aggression, depression, schitzophenia, etc. So, I really expected that along with higher population density, higher crime per capita would follow. The US has over 10 times the people and is 10 times more dense with people than AU. I really expected the US stats would show a pretty nasty picture compared to AU. Boy, was I wrong. Nearly every category of crime is much worse for AU than the US acccording to these stats. No wonder their government is so willing to take draconian measures to control it’s population. They’re deperate! And, fear for their government butts!

Here are the crime statistics which, I thought, were quite an eye opener.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/as/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

If you don’t want to look at numbers, here an interestng report:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073

The research time I spent made me a lot happier I live in the US despite it’s many problems.
Cheers,

74cb750 · « **Reply #76 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:22:54 PM »

Hey TwoTier,
the stats are interesting. I never would have thought it's that way. Any idea how the USA compares with the rest of the free world?

750deepsouth · « **Reply #77 on:** August 17, 2005, 03:56:42 PM »

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Quote

Nearly every category of crime is much worse for AU than the US acccording to these stats. No wonder their government is so willing to take draconian measures to control it?s population. They?re deperate! And, fear for their government butts!

Here are the crime statistics which, I thought, were quite an eye opener.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/as/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

From the same site, http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php "Top Graphs"

Murders per capita
USA 24th 0.04 /1000
Australia 43rd 0.01 /1000
NZ 52nd 0.01 /1000

Murders with firearms
USA 5th 0.02 /1000
Australia 27th 0.00 /1000
NZ 31st 0.00 / 1000

And on a completely different subject, taxation

Tax wedge per single worker, 100% average wage
USA 2nd 30%
Australia 27th 23.1%
NZ 28th 19.6%

Go the mighty Kiwis

Terry in Australia · « **Reply #78 on:** August 17, 2005, 04:37:16 PM »

Quote from: TwoTired on August 17, 2005, 02:29:35 PM

After all the Australia glorification, I began to wonder, if perhaps it really was a more peaceable place than the US of A. I had always looked to that country as an interesting place to live. And, I had really never met an ausie I did like, though my sample base is in the rather low 10’s. I set out to find crime stats for AU both before and after their 1996 gun confiscation, so I could see if there was a trend before vs. after. Haven’t found a lot worthy yet (still looking), with the anti Gun side saying its too soon to tell and they need 10 years of abolition. And, the Gun advocates pointing to increased crime trends as proof the laws are worthless and counter to promised safety.

So when did the US vs Australia debate begin? Pretty harsh words mate, from the safety of thousands of miles of seperation? I tell you what, send me your address, and if I do eventually get over to the US to visit all the friends that I've made via this site, I'll make sure to look you up, so you can tell me "face to face" what you really think? Now that'd be fun.................. Cheers, Terry.

TwoTired · « **Reply #79 on:** August 17, 2005, 04:38:42 PM »

Quote from: 74cb750 on August 17, 2005, 03:22:54 PM

the stats are interesting. I never would have thought it's that way. Any idea how the USA compares with the rest of the free world?

Yeah, surprised me, too. The same site will give you stats for any country you choose. But, since there were aussies bashing the US, I just pointed to theirs as an example.

http://www.nationmaster.com

Quail "Owner of the comfortable k8" · « **Reply #80 on:** August 17, 2005, 05:43:05 PM »

Danger ,Danger,Danger! You have to stay away from the Terry Mate! He will come to your home and hit you.

TwoTired · « **Reply #81 on:** August 17, 2005, 05:57:57 PM »

Quote from: andynzl on August 17, 2005, 03:56:42 PM

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"

So true. There's also. "Figures Lie and Liars Figure".

Interesting you would cherry pick only the stats out of the very long list that were in your favor.

Here's some others. For balance, of course.

NZ
Suicide rates in ages 15-24:26.7 per 100000 people[1st of 17]
Suicide rates in ages 25-34:25.1 per 100000 people[2nd of 17]
Rape victims:1.3% (1991)[1st of 21]
Assault victims:2.4% (1991)[3rd of 21]
Assaults:(per capita):7.47 per 1000 people[6th of 57]
Total crime victims:29.4% (1991)[2nd of 21]
Total crimes:(per capita):105.86 per 1000 people[2nd of 60]

US
Suicide rates in ages 15-24:13.7 per 100000 people[7th of 17]
Suicide rates in ages 25-34:15.3 per 100000 people[10th of 17]
Rape victims: (per capita):0.30 per 1000 people[9th of 65]
Assault victims:1.2% (1999)[11th of 21]
Assaults: (per capita):7.56 per 1000 people[5th of 57]
Total crime victims:21.1% (1999)[15th of 21]
Total crimes:(per capita):80.06 per 1000 people[8th of 60]

Don't feel too bad about the crime situation in NZ, AU is even worse.
1.Australia 30.1% (1999)
2.New Zealand 29.4% (1991)
15.United States 21.1% (1999)

It's also interesting that NZ and AU both have a Manslaughter stat that doesn't show up in the US listing. Does lack of guns promote beating people to death, or other alternate mode of lethality? And, for true comparision it needs to added to the Murders stat?
Or, is it just a quirk of the collection mechanism?

Really, the whole point here is that firearms are a significant crime deterant. And, I don't know this for sure, but I speculate the "Murders with firearms" stat may have included self defense actions as well. And, is more properly labeled "Deaths with firearms". Could be wrong about that, though. And, I couldn't find an easy/timely way to verify it.
Oh well. Ain't numbers fun...
$:-\$

SohcCBs · « **Reply #82 on:** August 17, 2005, 06:28:43 PM »

I don't particularly like handguns, to many hotheads get a hold of them, far too easily. The constitution reads (in short) that we've got the right to defend ourselves against an oppresive government and can maintain county armories for that purpose. It doesn't say anything about protecting yourself (with a handgun) from general crime or bodily injury. I'd rather have a Colt M-16, but I doubt that I ever will.

750deepsouth · « **Reply #83 on:** August 17, 2005, 07:01:03 PM »

Quote

Interesting you would cherry pick only the stats out of the very long list that were in your favor

I was trying to keep on topic & didn't go right through them all - don't you have to work ?

I think you will find many crime stats are very hard to compare. Eg so much depends on reporting and clearance rates.
And total crimes per capita ? comes down to reporting rates.
This site seems to have much incomplete data. Also, we are not even comparing similar years { 1991 vs 1999 }

Later.....

Try these:

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-2.html
{comparisons between different countries}

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-5.html
Summary: In 2000, America had more than double the rate of forcible rape per capita than New Zealand, more than three times the rate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter and robbery than New Zealand per capita, and over four times the rate of aggravated assault per capita than New Zealand. The rate of total violent crime for America in 2000 was 506.1 per 100,000 population; almost four times the rate of 132.6 for New Zealand. Great caution, however, should be adopted in interpreting these comparative figures. In addition to the factors discussed in the earlier section "Comparisons between different countries", there are significant differences in the criminal systems and offence definitions in the two jurisdictions.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-6.html
Summary:In 2000, Australia and New Zealand had an equal rate of homicide per capita. New Zealand's equivalent data for Australia's definition of assault, however, was more than a quarter higher than Australia's rate per capita, while Australia's rate of sexual assault was more than a quarter higher than New Zealand's. Australia's rate of robbery per capita was more than twice that for New Zealand. New Zealand's total violent crime rate of 1036.4 per 100,000 population, according to the Australian definition, was ten percent higher than Australia's rate of 941.9 per 100,000 population. Great caution, however, should again be adopted in interpreting these comparative figures, as discussed below.

In relation to the factors discussed in the earlier section "Comparisons between different countries", Australia and New Zealand's jurisdictions use different crime counting rules. Australia's crime rates are counted in terms of the numbers of victims, rather than the number of offences, recorded by Police. In the Australian counting rule, each victim within a distinct criminal incident is counted once to the most serious offence within each national offence category. For example, if a person is indecently assaulted (one form of sexual assault) and then raped (another form of sexual assault), only one count of sexual assault is recorded. New Zealand's counting rule would normally record two sexual assault offences from this criminal incident. Where a victim is subjected to multiple offences of the same type during a single criminal incident (e. g., being assaulted by several offenders, or repeatedly assaulted by the same offender), the victim is counted only once. In New Zealand, every offence by every offender is normally recorded. These differences in counting rules are likely to inflate the apparent violent crime rates of New Zealand in comparison to Australia. However, due to the many factors that can influence the accurate comparisons of recorded crime figures between the two jurisdictions, it remains unknown to what extent the differences in counting rules alone accounts for the difference in the rates between Australia and New Zealand.

Terry in Australia · « **Reply #84 on:** August 17, 2005, 07:58:48 PM »

Quote from: QUAIL on August 17, 2005, 05:43:05 PM

Danger ,Danger,Danger! You have to stay away from the Terry Mate! He will come to your home and hit you.

I didn't say I was gonna hit anyone? I just wanted to talk................

SohcCBs · « **Reply #85 on:** August 17, 2005, 08:29:06 PM »

Quote from: andynzl on August 17, 2005, 03:56:42 PM

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"

At least 98% of all statistics are manipulated toward the agenda of whoever sponsors it. Now that's something no one will admit, but everyone knows is true, except those who's agenda is using the particular stats. Heck, I've seen stats that show that in places where guns are required, there's less crime. No foolin'! There are a couple small cities in the US that made it law that everyone must own a gun. The crime dropped to 0 over night, and stayed that way.

TwoTired · « **Reply #86 on:** August 18, 2005, 12:17:31 AM »

Quote from: SohcCBs on August 17, 2005, 06:28:43 PM

The constitution reads (in short) that we've got the right to defend ourselves against an oppresive government and can maintain county armories for that purpose. It doesn't say anything about protecting yourself (with a handgun) from general crime or bodily injury.

Well, actually it does. Through the 4th and 2nd amendments coupled with the Constitution. But, an explanation of how it does it is rather difficult to concisely state. There are legal briefs that explain it, though, should you feel the need to wade though it. Several pages, let me know, I'll post a link.
Anyway, it is a basic fundamental right, self preservation and self defense.
Some states a have included specific language in their 2nd amendments.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790).
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -

And while there is no specificc language about handguns, the vernacular of the day didn't differentiate arms of any form; long guns or pistols that all able bodied citizens were required to own and bring with them when called for national or local defense. There is a strong argument that handguns are more effective for self protection than long guns, particularly in the confined areas of one's home. Depriving access to effective tools for self defense is contrary to the tenets that defined this nation.

Oh, and you are right about the places that require gun ownership. Kennesaw, GA ! Crime didn't exactly go to zero. But, it's pretty close. Criminals definately fear homeowners with guns.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

Cheers,

Quail "Owner of the comfortable k8" · « **Reply #87 on:** August 18, 2005, 07:31:42 PM »

It won't be long before we a quoting the NRA and MTHE (mothers that hate everything).

Badboy · « **Reply #88 on:** August 20, 2005, 07:30:04 PM »

Answer to QUAIL on his statement"shooting to protect,does not always mean the first shot to kill" or something close to that. Well ,that idea could end up meaning that the second shot would be you are killed. If I do ever have to defend myself,I WILL shoot to kill the first shot,for you might not get another shot.[Read my post on the young policeman that was killed here a few years ago. If he had made his first shot count ,He would be still alive.]

Badboy · « **Reply #89 on:** August 20, 2005, 07:31:34 PM »

Are you people still duking it out on this subject?

Buffo · « **Reply #90 on:** August 20, 2005, 09:10:10 PM »

due to our litigious society... I always say "Dead men tell no tales."

We have all heard the stories...
Man breaks into house.
Resident shots man in leg.
Man sues resident for house and wins.

I have never heard of the family of a dead burgler/rapist/murderer/druged out thief (fill in your favorite intruder) sueing because thier dead burgler/rapist/murderer/druged out thief (fill in your favorite intruder) got killed in the middle of his...attempt.

If I ever have the misfortune to shoot someone I dont want them to be able to say "I broke in because...(add sad, pathetic story to pull on bleeding heart strings here).

All I want anyone to know is that that man/woman broke into my house intent on harming my family but it didnt quite go as he/she planned.

Don

Dragman836 · « **Reply #91 on:** August 26, 2005, 11:32:01 AM »

Handguns well I have a beautiful collection. I live in Indiana a handgun license state and I think that Indiana is still in America by God where service men and women have fought and died for my rights to be protected. My wife is a federal firearms dealer and owns an indoor handgun range in Hammond Indiana ( America ) Where we all enjoy the freedoms that we have held so near and dear to our hearts here in ( America ) Yep I would say that I support the constitution of the United states. If you are really interested there will be a link to my wifes web page to follow.Yep on her page that's me holding the Tommy Gun that she rents for use in her range. So thanks Terry for this one I read all the others from "My bike scares small children" Always enjoy your post
Thanks and best regards
Dennis

www.debsgunrange.com

Terry in Australia · « **Reply #92 on:** August 26, 2005, 05:05:16 PM »

G'Day Dennis, that looks really cool mate, and as a serving soldier, I appreciate the expression of gratitude, I know it's directed at American servicemen (and women) but it's good to see that they're appreciated by the civilians that they protect. I love guns, as I've previously mentioned, in fact I took my son target shooting on Thursday night here, and was surprised that after 5 minutes of tuition he fired a better group than me, and I'm the best shot in my unit! He's never fired a weapon before in his life, so to get consistant 80's was doing very well.

No, my concern is the apparent willingness of civilians to shoot other civilians who they fear will transgress against their liberty, or the ridiculous notion that somehow the gun owning populace will rise against a crooked government. If they got off their asses and actually voted, they'd have a much better chance of keeping their governments honest. The fact is that the US, like a lot of other countries (including mine) have had crooked governments for years and have done nothing about it, and probably never will. In Iraq before the invasion, Saddam armed the populace with AK47's to rise up against the allied forces, and most of the folk there were happy to hand them over when faced with the alternative, annihilation at the hands of killing experts.

Anyway, good luck to Deb Dennis, tell her I want to book myself in for a shoot with that old Tommy Gun when I get over to the US, I haven't fired one of those old dinosaurs in years! Cheers, Terry.

Bob Wessner · « **Reply #93 on:** August 26, 2005, 05:57:39 PM »

Quote

If they got off their asses and actually voted, they'd have a much better chance of keeping their governments honest.

I'll second that!

Dragman836 · « **Reply #94 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:14:58 PM »

.

Anyway, good luck to Deb Dennis, tell her I want to book myself in for a shoot with that old Tommy Gun when I get over to the US, I haven't fired one of those old dinosaurs in years! Cheers, Terry.

Quote

" COME ON DOWN " ! IF YOU GET OVER THIS WAY I'LL GIVE YA A FREE PASS

Terry in Australia · « **Reply #95 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:18:03 PM »

Quote from: Dragman836 on August 26, 2005, 07:14:58 PM

.

Anyway, good luck to Deb Dennis, tell her I want to book myself in for a shoot with that old Tommy Gun when I get over to the US, I haven't fired one of those old dinosaurs in years! Cheers, Terry.
Quote
" COME ON DOWN " ! IF YOU GET OVER THIS WAY I'LL GIVE YA A FREE PASS

Thanks mate! Cheers, Terry.

News:

Poll

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT CARRYING GUNS FOR PROTECTION

Author Topic: HAND GUNS Friend or Foe (Put your goves on and come out FRIENDS) (Read 14191 times)

Badboy

Badboy

Buffo