Violent crime in Australia

[lordsmurf]

Homicide rate in Australia: 1.9 (2001-2002)
Homicide rate in USA: 5.5 (2000)

This doesn't mean anything. You're just an island.
What's the per capita rate?

[Will Hay]

Hey George

Funny the other thread was locked after a poster said it seems to be getting political, probably gonna be locked, the handgun in the book sack thing.

I suppose that depends on the author of the thread
Will

[ChrisX]

Maybe we should ban cars too? Cars kill a lot more people than guns do. Better ban old age too, old age kills 100% of the people who have it.

I agree that we should ban cars and get them off the road, too many of them. They pollute the planet as well killing people.

I just saw an NBC report of a teen and two men killed by an out of control speeding car. A dangerous driver must lose his license for life and be arraigned for triple murder.

Check out the New York Report: http://www.wnbc.com/traffic/2536392/detail.html?treets=ny&tid=2654008548813&tml=ny_dai...110082003&ts=H

Anyway, the driver was killed on impact. All three killed in the same car.

A car can be used as a murder weapon. I know of one case when a young man was hit by a car at a party, outside a house not far from me last year. This was done on purpose.

A gun, a knife, an axe, a car and many other ways to kill somebody. We can't ban everything. Ban a knife on a plane was a start.

What about 911 with the hijackers? Ban them from learning how fly a plane or jet and too late now. The hijackers were mad and crazy as hell. The murderers burnt at WTC to hell.

[RabidDog]

Hit with a cricket wicket! cricket BAT. Tony Martin the burglar shooter is not in a safe house, he is back on his own land. I dont know the figures about "hot" burglars as opposed to cold burglars, all burglars fear meeting the occupants. Do not rely on anecdote. crime and fear of crime are two different things. No police force in Britain has been told to ignore crime, where did that quote come from?

[Guidoo]

Just want to get my 2 cents in everyone

1. I'm a 40 something male, US citizen, handgun, shotgun ,rifle owner
My dad owned a gunshop and did gunsmith work in Florida during 60's
and 70's. In a nutshell...I've had and been around guns of all sorts my
life.

2. The prior posts regarding countries with strict gun control prove that these
laws make little diff in overall crime rates but do lower death by gun
statistics. (it does appear that the overall numbers for all crime are lower)


3. A question... after looking at the stats for crime in Australia I was
wondering...are the per capita numbers lower overall due to cultural
diffs or the gun laws.

4. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution provides for :
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

5. This is quite frankly very outdated. When this Amendment was created
over 200 years ago the only real diff between the military and the public
were field cannon. What chance would Joe Citizen with his over the
counter weapon have against a modern Army. Perhaps some sniper
activity.

Despite what people think, one cannot buy an UZI or other machinegun
over the counter nor can you buy grenades, mortars, rpg's etc etc .
These weapons all fall under "Class III" (destructive weapons) of the
1968 GCA ( Gun Control Act). These are the weapons that would be
needed by a militia to perform any kind of gorilla warfare.

6. Am I in favor of more gun control laws ? Truthfully I dont know...
if some correlation between tighter laws and a drop in overall crime
could be proven...then yes. But without such proof it makes no diff.
It really doesnt matter if someone is killed with a gun or another
weapon...a life is lost.

7. In closing both the Pro-gun lobby and the Anti-gun lobby need to
remove their heads from their prospective butts. Both are using plain
BS arguments to make their points.


ok.....maybe this was more like 50 cents worth

[ChrisX]

2. The prior posts regarding countries with strict gun control prove that these
laws make little diff in overall crime rates but do lower death by gun
statistics. (it does appear that the overall numbers for all crime are lower)

I agree that strict guns laws don’t appear to do anything and make much difference.

The Australian Government brought laws 1996 on guns after a crazed gunman, Martin Bryant, who killed 35 people in Tasmania with auto machine gun. Despite what happened then, Australia’s crime rate with guns is still much, much lower than in the US.

Australia’s homicide rate is mostly other than guns. These weapons only make up a smaller percentage and a knife is more likely to be the weapon to kill.

Handguns have been imported into Australia for some time even though as illegal to import, to sell and to own and this prompted the NSW State Government to bring in tougher laws.

Australia’s Federal and the State Governments are still bickering over everything, and this includes gun control. The State is blaming the Federal Government on import of handguns while the Feds are blaming the State on their laws and enforcement with not enough Police.

There is another firearms amnesty campaign in NSW: http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/ I don’t think this will do anything to reduce crime and guns will still be available.

6. Am I in favor of more gun control laws ? Truthfully I dont know...
if some correlation between tighter laws and a drop in overall crime
could be proven...then yes. But without such proof it makes no diff.
It really doesnt matter if someone is killed with a gun or another
weapon...a life is lost.

As you say, "Am I in favor of more gun control laws ?"

This is better than not doing anything on guns and politicians can appear to be doing something even though may not make much difference. No matter, how big the fine is or how long in prison doesn’t appear to deter the crime of guns.

Anyway, more gun control may help. However, what we need is control of imports coming into Australia. Ban overseas imports of guns, as they mostly from overseas.

Ban them from coming here; this would be more effective in gun control than tougher laws.

Unfortunately, guns can still be imported illegally as Government resources on imports are limited.

[thayne]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take away the guns they will use something else like cars, knives, bombs, etc....

Gun control is stupid. All it does is restrict law abiding people, criminals don't obey any of these silly laws so what's the point?

The point is control. The government has more control over people who cannot defend themselves and if you think you are immune from government injustice you are not living in reality....

In the US, cities with the strongest gun control have the highest crime rates. Just look at Washington D.C. The murder capitol of the world....

[Conquest10]

"Guns don't kill people, its just that certain sound they make."

[sterno]

To get back to the original question - some time back (months? last year? something like that) people were circulating a "letter" written by somebody claiming to be a law enforcement officer in Australia talking about some huge increase in the crime rate since the change in laws. Hard to know who actually wrote it. It looked like scare-tactic propaganda, any issue where people have strong feelings produces things like that.

Personally, I favor fewer restrictions on firearms, but I still hate a lot of the more vocal groups who oppose gun control. If I favored a total ban on all private firearms I would still have total contempt for most of the vocal groups who support greater restrictions. Most of them present their cases with meaningless slogans, bluster, scare tactics, argument ad hominem, weasel wording/number juggling, and outright lies. As a reasonably intelligent adult I find that thoroughly offensive, and I think it's truly sad that so many people are foolish enough to treat these things as valid arguments.

[sterno]

Oh yeah, and I think we SHOULD be allowed to have our own nuclear weapons. Just think about neighborhood association meetings:

"What do you mean I can't build my new fence? Well, history has shown that two things guarantee good neighbors: good fences, and the threat of nuclear annihilation. If I can't have my fence...."

But maybe anything with a yield over 5 megatons or a range over 5000 miles should require a permit from local law enforcement....

[RabidDog]

and you just know they'd never find it .
WMD

[gmatov]

Rabid,

So OK, I don't know the right terminology. That "wicket" fellow is actually called the batsman, right?

As of this link, last two words, in quotes, third paragraph, he WAS in a "safe house", not allowed to go home, and with a bounty on his head.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/29/nmart129.xml

And the parole board, whatever you Brits call it, DID, according to The Telegraph, hear government that he should not be freed because he was "a danger to burglars"

Now if that isn't an assh**e, upside down way to treat the victim, as opposed to the criminal, I don't know what is.

Pacman,

I don't know what it is with non shooting types to vilify the "automatic" or "semi-automatic" firearm. Too many Lethal Weapons or A-Team movies, I guess. Everybody seems to assume that hosing down the people in front of you means wiping out everybody within 180 degrees of vision, especially when in the movies they fire 4 or 500 rounds from that 20 round magazine. And, damn if they don't miss!!!

The US military learned that in Viet Nam, that just because you give a draftee an automatic weapon, and he can spray little copper clad projectiles all over the landscape, you are NOT going to mow down regiments attacking your position.

You are obviously watching the propaganda on the news programs, where they show a Palestinian talking to a reporter, with a cameraman present, when he sticks his arm up over the cover he's behind, and fires a burst. "I probably hit 37 Israelis with that 20 round magazine full".

In this country (I may be repeating myself here, but I'm old enough to do so: Old Timer's Disease, you know) the demonized weapon of choice is the "assault rifle"..

The Governor of New Jersey ordered her State Police to go to the Evidence Room to bring back an assault rifle so she could show the newsmen what types of arms she wanted to outlaw in her state. The reply was "Ma'am, there has never been a crime committed in this state with an assault rifle. We don't have any."

I don't know, are the vast majority of you so young, and brain washed, that you think the elected officials are gods, and if they say something is bad, by God, it is bad, and we have to repeat the mantra? Some of you sound as though "Gattica" is your idea of Nirvana.

A school boy is not allowed to have a pocket knife, a pen knife, if you will. That was the reason for the invention of the small clasp knife, to sharpen the quills used as pens, ala Harry Potter.

When I was a boy, a pen knife was to sharpen a pencil, or gut a rabbit, pheasant, duck, whatever you managed to shoot after school was out, that evening's supper.

Today, a 12 year old girl gets expelled because the calculator she borrowed from her mother happened to have a knife blade 2 inches long that slipped out of the side of the case, and she was "caught" cleaning her nails with it.

God save the queen, if you are ever attacked again, the French, maybe, sounds like you'll just roll over and play dead. Not like the last time,when Churchill begged the US to send all the guns the shooting citizen could spare. And, those not lost to combat were, at the end of hostilities, self righteously dumped in the ocean. Not returned, with thanks to the working class US citizen who donated them.

Ah, well,

Cheers,

George

[rkr1958]

Tell that to the 6 million jews who were murdered...

I don't think 6 million jews were murdered in Germany during WWII.

6 Million Jews were murdered in Concentraction / Death Camps runned by Germans (SS) during WWII. As I recall my history, another 6 Million Non-Jews, (Gypses, Disabled, etc.) were also murdered in German runned Concentration / Death Camps. By the way, Russia lost 21,000,000 people over four years of war with Germany. That breaks down to around 14,400 Russians a day or 100,000 Russians a week killed. 500,000 Americans died, 4,000,000 Germans, add in the UK, Japan, Italy, China, and others ... It was barbaric ...

[vitualis]

Homicide rate in Australia: 1.9 (2001-2002)
Homicide rate in USA: 5.5 (2000)

This doesn't mean anything. You're just an island.
What's the per capita rate?

Um... CLICK on the link. These are per 100,000 head of population figures. The US has 2.9 times the homicide rate of Australia.

As for you gmatov, I think we can just disagree. IMHO, there are no such thing as an absolute right to own anything from an individual basis.

We all live in a society and as a trade off for the benefits of living in that society we give up certain freedoms. One can argue that in "better" societies, the various rules and protocols of the society (i.e., societal norms as well as legal constructs) are developed and maintained on a democratic basis with regular/constant review.

As for the whole issue of guns and weapons of all sorts, the issue is whether the freedom of an individual to own a particular weapon is more important than the adverse effects (real or impressional) to that of society. For example, I think most people can see that it is pretty clear that the "freedom" for civilians to own nuclear weapons is definitely not as important as the potential negative effects it would have on society (as such, nuclear weapons are highly restricted).

IMHO, the same too is for guns. In today's modern civil society (especially if you live in urban regions), I don't see why anyone should need to own a firearm. I don't see how the "freedom" for someone to do so is more important than the potential risks to society in general (insofar as there are weapons designed to kill living things including people easily available). In a number of countries (e.g., AU, UK), the government (which let me remind is is the democratically elected representative of the people) agrees with this point of view.

Now, I can understand how in the US, the balance of values may be different as there is a developmental history with firearms (enshrined of course in your Constitution). You (generic) feel that the personal "right" to own a firearm is important for a whole number number of reasons, but may I suggest perhaps "culture" plays a large part. However, the issue remains. Modern US society is not the same as it was when its constitution was drafted and the context is now completely different. Laws of any sort should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to fit the current social environment. For example, the "White Australia Policy" might have been appropriate when it was first made, but if it still existed now, it would be grossly inappropriate.

I would suggest that the whole concept of a "right to bear arms" is no longer relevant in contemporary society.

As for the story of:

The Governor of New Jersey ordered her State Police to go to the Evidence Room to bring back an assault rifle so she could show the newsmen what types of arms she wanted to outlaw in her state. The reply was "Ma'am, there has never been a crime committed in this state with an assault rifle. We don't have any."

... hell, there hasn't been any crimes commited in Australia (or the US) with nuclear weapons either. I'm pretty sure I want these outlawed!

Now, a number of you have commented on "why not ban cars", they kill people too. Well, I have to say, that if gun ownership was as highly regulated car ownership, then perhaps some of the problems you have in the US might not exist...

Let me remind you that the primary purpose of a car is transportation. The primary purpose of a gun is to shoot a high velocity projectile for the purpose of causing injury / death. It has no other purpose. If you want to argue that you just want to own a gun to "scare people off" if you get attacked, etc., then there is no reason to own a real firearm at all. A replica or one that fires blanks will do the same job. If you load with real bullets and intend to actually pull the trigger, the purpose of the weapon is to injury/kill someone.

Ignoring this fundamental difference, let me remind you that car ownership requires a licence that needs to updated every few years. Before you can get a licence to drive/use a car, you (depending on where you live) need to pass a number of competency examinations and usually will need evidence that you have actually trained with someone else (e.g. a log book).

In many places (Australia at least), you need to carry your specific driver's licence (which includes a photo ID) at ALL times when you are driving a car. There is compulsary third party comprehensive insurance for all vehicles in case you damage property or injury someone else. Every car needs to have yearly registration and the proof of registration needs to be affixed on the windscreen -- and registration includes an independent check to make sure that the vehicle is road worthy.

People who argue that cars are dangerous things are right. They are dangerous, but necessary -- hence the regulation. I think that guns are pretty dangerous too. I don't think that they are necessary, but if you do, then it seems like the logical conclusion is the the following... For gun ownership you need the following:

• proof of training with a responsible "teacher" for a minimum number of hours
• passing a test on the competent and responsible use of a firearm before earning a provisional licence
• have restrictions on use of the firearm while on a provisional licence (until getting a full licence)
• licences need to be updated/renewed every few years
• a physical photo ID licence must be carried at all times you are carrying a firearm
• ownership of a firearm involves having compulsory full third party insurance
• firearms need to be have annual registration which includes an independent check to ensure that are still "safe"/working properly
• proof of annual registration need to be physically attached to the actual firearm
• etc...

Regards.

[gmatov]

Michael,

Wow!!!

I am glad you are there and I am here. Your restrictions are more rabid than ANY of our most rabid antis. At least "our" antis are content to get the camel's nose in the tent, as a preliminary step. They have inadvertently said that the long range goal, though the climate here would not allow such far reaching aims, is the total confiscation/outlawing of ANY weapon.

Your list is 10 times as strict, just as an off the bat thing.

Licenses here are required to be renewed on a basis set by the states, my own being a 5 year duration, after which I have to pay the investigation fee again, though you would think the Sheriff's office would be aware of any wrong doing in the interim.

Annual inspection? It's an automobile? Your tie rods have worn, or your brakes? Or are you into the "smart gun", with the computer chip, and for a safety inspection you hand your gun to the inspector, he points it at you, squeezes the trigger, you are dead, it failed, you are alive, congrats, your gun is working fine, I can't shoot you with your own gun, causse I ddon't have your exact magnetic field..

There are states here that have tried to impose laws outlawing handgun sales from any company that does not offer a "smart gun", with a computer chip that precludes anyone but the programmed owner from using it.

When those states made this public, the police made damn well certain that the requirement would not apply to them nor the body guards of the elected officials who passed the laws.

Rathr like our Rosie O'Donnell ( I hate the fat broad who thinks her s**t don't stink ) who harangues the "common folk" to turn in their guns, yet sends her kids to school with 2 armed body guards.

Or the lady mayor of Chicago who paraded into the ghetto with 2 dozen cops surrounding her, and proclaimed that it did not look like a dangerous neighborhood to her.

At what odds would you be willing to make a bet that your top elected officials, selling you on total disarmament, are surrounded by suits with UZIs undder their jackets and minimum 9m/ms in their armpits or waistbands?

You're a peon, pal, and guns are not for you, you might get pissed and shoot one of US, and we can't allow that.

So, jump through hoops, pal. Set your freezers to over 32 degrees, no frozen leg'o lamb to club a malfeasor with.

Actually, you guys are just as rabid as our most rabid.I ddon't understand it, unless, as I have mentioned, you have all been conditioned by so called liberal educators The hoi-poloi, we know betters.

Cheers,

George

[gmatov]

IMHO, there are no such thing as an absolute right to own anything from an individual basis.

Michael,

Congratulations!!!

You have just declared tourself to be the 3rd entity in the world to declare itself a pure Communist. The other 2 are Cuba and mainland China, or maybe you could say North korea.

Good God, man, there was NO civilization till the concept of ownership evolved.

If you held a leg 'o lamb, and a bigger, stronger Cro Magnon came up and took it from you, with impunity, there was no civilization..

If you held a leg 'o lamb, and a bigger, stronger Homo Sap came up and took it off you, and the rest of the tribe jumped his ass and said give it back, you have the beginnings of a civilization, property rights.

You say you have no right to own anything. That is pure bullshit. I have a paper that says "this is mine". That means you may not have it unless I give/sell it to you. Quite the same as your country a 100-150 years ago, where the men with the guns held their land till the "law" came in to legitimize their holdings, similar, indeed, to such things as millions of acres of King Ranch in Texas.

You guys are beginning to worry me. What the hell are we growing, today, if you can, with a straight face, make such a comment?

Sigh,

Cheers,

George

[gmatov]

Michael,
On rereading the balance of your post, it is so asinine that it will take me all of tomorrow, as I type slowly, to rebut.

Most of them, as per you shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, are so utterly facetious, I don't know if you are just parroting the post above, or if you really mean it.

Regardless, it is asinine. I'm sorry, but that is the way of it.

Cheers,

George

[thayne]

Go get em gmatov! I'm tired of their propaganda and trying to explain common sense to them is like talking to a brick wall. Why do they always bring up the nuclear thing? It's retarded. How can anyone compare a handgun to a nuclear bomb? Is that the best they can come up with?

Let them give up their rights and their weapons and when their government begins oppresing them or their criminals attack them without fear of reprocussion we'll sit back and smile shaking our heads

I can tell you I don't worry about criminals. If one comes into my house he's leaving in a body bag. I caught a burgler in my neighbors house a few months ago. He was armed with a knife. I was armed with an H&K 9mm and a German Shepherd. Guess who won? He was totally intimidated and did everything I said. It took the police 20 minutes to show up. Wonder how much damage he could have done with that knife in the 20 minute it took the police to show up if I wasn't armed and didn't have a big dog?

Those of you who think guns are bad and expect the police to protect you should read this:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/966982.asp?0sl=-11

[vitualis]

I am glad you are there and I am here. Your restrictions are more rabid than ANY of our most rabid antis. At least "our" antis are content to get the camel's nose in the tent, as a preliminary step. They have inadvertently said that the long range goal, though the climate here would not allow such far reaching aims, is the total confiscation/outlawing of ANY weapon.

As usual, you choose to miss the point. No matter.

The issue was that of a comparison between automobiles and firearms. You "pro" people are quick to complain with shock and horror at any "restrictions". The fact is, to own and drive a car, you have to do ALL the above things I mentioned. Does that make me "anti-car"??

A car as many people have pointed out can be a potentially dangerous/lethal --> quite strict regulation. Nobody suggests that it should be any other way. There is a lack of consistency of thought for people to suggest that similar restrictions on firearms are "unfair" -- except for the obvious wish to maintain the status quo.

IMHO, there are no such thing as an absolute right to own anything from an individual basis.

Michael,

Congratulations!!!

You have just declared tourself to be the 3rd entity in the world to declare itself a pure Communist. The other 2 are Cuba and mainland China, or maybe you could say North korea.

Sorry, but perhaps you should take a cool hard look around the world around you. Do you think that you have a right to own anything you want? What you can and cannot own is determined by the society you live in whether you like it or not. This is what I was trying to highlight. If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy world.

BTW, don't take my quotation out of context. "Anything" was used in the sense of "anything possible" NOT "everything". The rest of your rant to that regard is irrelevant.

Most of them, as per you shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, are so utterly facetious, I don't know if you are just parroting the post above, or if you really mean it.

I've noticed that you really like those two words... "facaetious" and "asinine"... Again, you are missing the point which I think is pretty clear. You seem to take the stance that you have a deontological right to be able to OWN a firearm. What I am saying is this is not true, and indeed, there is no basis for it at all. As the before point. What you can and cannot "own" is determined by society as a whole. You find it a ridiculous arguement that people can't own nuclear weapons. Have you actually thought for more than 2 seconds on WHY? It is because society does not think that this is a responsibility that an average civilian should have or CAN have.

This is the basis for ALL things. Society does not think that the average civilian can have the responsibility of owning and driving a car WITHOUT a series of tests and licencing.

In the same way, society can decide the same thing about firearms (and indeed it has in a number of countries).

The US as I have described is somewhat different in that the constitution protects the right to "bear arms". That is all well and good, but the impression many people have outside of the US looking in, is that it often seems that this sense of "individual right" overshadows what is good for society as a whole.

I can tell you I don't worry about criminals. If one comes into my house he's leaving in a body bag. I caught a burgler in my neighbors house a few months ago. He was armed with a knife. I was armed with an H&K 9mm and a German Shepherd. Guess who won? He was totally intimidated and did everything I said. It took the police 20 minutes to show up. Wonder how much damage he could have done with that knife in the 20 minute it took the police to show up if I wasn't armed and didn't have a big dog?

Hey good for you! You're a hero (no truly -- that's brave). However, is everyone with a gun as responsible as you? That's a good story, but I've also read stories where a homeowner has shot a complete stranger on his property who was just lost. Shit, sometimes I get the wrong address when I'm going to a party. The last thing I want to think about is potentially being shot by some paranoid guy thinking I'm a burguler or something.

Remember what I wrote before. Anecdotes are all well and good, but they mean nothing. For every n=1 experience, there is an n=1 experience that shows something else.

Take care, and make sure the next person you're thinking of shooting isn't just some dorky Japanese student trying to find the party...

Regards.

[lordsmurf]

Homicide rate in Australia: 1.9 (2001-2002)
Homicide rate in USA: 5.5 (2000)

This doesn't mean anything. You're just an island.
What's the per capita rate?

Um... CLICK on the link. These are per 100,000 head of population figures. The US has 2.9 times the homicide rate of Australia.

DOH! Completely missed it.

For gun ownership you need the following:

• proof of training with a responsible "teacher" for a minimum number of hours
• passing a test on the competent and responsible use of a firearm before earning a provisional licence
• have restrictions on use of the firearm while on a provisional licence (until getting a full licence)
• licences need to be updated/renewed every few years
• a physical photo ID licence must be carried at all times you are carrying a firearm
• ownership of a firearm involves having compulsory full third party insurance
• firearms need to be have annual registration which includes an independent check to ensure that are still "safe"/working properly
• proof of annual registration need to be physically attached to the actual firearm
• etc...

Regards.

Interesting. I live in a state that prides itself in gun ownership. And I live in the #1 most crime ridden city in America at the moment (Dallas, Texas). We just fired our dipshit police chief.

Given those factors, and given the list above, some of what you say would be worth listening to, at very least. Althought the insurance clause... well, let's just say we have lawsuits for that.

Much like Affirmative Action and other laws of the past, some things do need re-evaluation as time goes by. I'm not saying I'd follow your list or even support it, but it brings up good points to a large table of problems and solutions.

The military requires most of those things already. I do find it disgusting that the nearest thug can pick one up legitimately with no training or anything else.

[vitualis]

I'm not advocating that you Americans should be pro-gun or anti-gun. That's really a matter of your own domestic politics which is undoubtedly more complicated that I as an outsider can appreciate.

What I was curious about originally what that several members had previous stated that there was some sort of massive increase in violent crime in Australia... originally I thought that the 500% thing was just a one off exaggeration and then I saw somebody posting the same stats...

As I have shown, there is no massive increase in crime in Australia, and certainly banning certain firearms hasn't made much difference (after all, they were pretty regulated before the ban anyway).

I think I got sidetracked into the whole gun debate... However, I maintain that as an outsider looking in it...

often seems that this sense of "individual right" overshadows what is good for society as a whole.

It is also my personal opinion that there is little logical reason why you need to own a firearm (especially military stuff or handguns) in the domestic setting when living in a modern civil society (like US, UK, AU).

As for my "suggestions", there were just a comparison between cars and guns. In the list, replace the word "firearm" with "car" and suddenly it isn't controversial! I don't find it particular surprising that there is a large discrepancy between the regulation of guns and cars (historical factors mainly) but I AM surprised at how offended people seem to get when you try to highlight this point. After all, a car isn't designed to be a lethal weapon while a firearm is.

Regards.

[RabidDog]

gmatov
re Tony martin rightly or wrongly, in the eyes of the law, he was the criminal. He spent sometime in a safe house but IS now back on his own land being guarded 24/7 by about four officers.The parole board decide on his suitability for parole and listen to opinions from interested parties, which group said "he was a danger to burglars"?

Re cars and Guns, I find it disgusting that somebody can get in a car, drunk, then on the way home run over and kill someone, and only be charged with drunk driving or vehicular manslaughter, max of 5 years, rather than murder 2(?)

In cricket there is a batsman at the wicket (Home base) , the wicket is the three stumps (sticks) in the ground any one of which would be suitable as a weapon, however the Bat is similat to a baseball bat except flatter and wider, suitable for squashing possums and other varmints.

people should also look at the crime figures in Japan, another largely urbanised westernised society, their crime rate is incredibly low. This is due to societal pressure.

[Will Hay]

......that's really a matter of your own domestic politics

Virtualis, please make me a moderator for sixty seconds
Will

[vitualis]

Some outstanding issues...

...banned and confiscated 600,000 semi-automatic “military style” firearms from their licenced owners (Lawson 1999)

I don't know who this "Lawson" person is but that reeks of propaganda. There was no "confiscation". There was a gun amnesty and people were invited to voluntarily hand in these weapon -- and in return, they were compensated a pretty reasonable sum (which is why the whole thing cost so much money). Essentially, the govt bought back these weapons from their owners!

A question... after looking at the stats for crime in Australia I was
wondering...are the per capita numbers lower overall due to cultural
diffs or the gun laws.

I would put my money on cultural differences. However, the reason we have less gun related crime is because we have less guns -- especially, less easily assessible guns. There is a certain logic to it. If a petty criminal is going to use a weapon, they are going to use one that is easy to get -- which in Australia is less likely to be a firearm than compared to the US.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take away the guns they will use something else like cars, knives, bombs, etc....

That is just so insightless. A lot of deaths don't occur from premeditation. Your petty criminal is much less likely to kill someone with a knife or a stick than he is with a firearm if he chooses to attack. Similarly, if my kids and their friends break into my locked cupboard to just find some important documents, they aren't going to accidentally shoot themselves. Or if the disenchanted depressed kids from the local high school choose to do something rash and act out their "revenge" on a bully, they are much less likely to kill them if they have no ready access to a gun.

Regards.

[thayne]

Similarly, if my kids and their friends break into my locked cupboard to just find some important documents, they aren't going to accidentally shoot themselves. Or if the disenchanted depressed kids from the local high school choose to do something rash and act out their "revenge" on a bully, they are much less likely to kill them if they have no ready access to a gun.

Umm, thats what trigger locks and gun safes are for....

[rhegedus]

Sorry to butt in so late in the argument.................

I'm not sure about Australia, but The UK isn't a bed of roses as far as gun crime:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/10/ncrime10.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2069400.stm

I'm all for tighter gun laws, provided they can be enforced amongst criminal too - as it is, it's only the 'law abiding' that would be effected by tighter gun restrictions.

The only guns you can legally keep at home now are shotguns and hunting rifles, and that's only by permit to farmers and gamekeepers etc. Newly implemented laws against handguns and assault rifles have not stopped recent gun related incidents nor have they reduced gun crime.

[gmatov]

Michael,

The automobile argument is "facetious". (Sorry, couldn't resist, as you point out, it seems to be one of my favorite words.)

Registration of automobiles was strictly for the purpose of charging for the "privelege" of driving.

Registration of firearms was, and has always been, for the purpose of control. Who may, and who may not, have a weapon for self defense.

The first gun control laws in this country were enacted to keep guns out of the hands of the newly freed slaves after the Civil War, 1861-1865. They became harsher and more restrictive all the way up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Our blacks were prevented from having a firearm, the Ku Klux Klan were not. Easy to lynch a guy when a hundred white sheeted hatemongers have guns, and the "nigra" doesn't. Different story when he says "**** it, the law might hang me for having a gun, but a buncha rednecks ain't gonna!!!"

When the assh**les got a load of buckshot flung at them, 100 white sheets got brown stains on the backs of them, while the wearers slipped and slid in their own s**t.

Society does not decide if you should have the right to self defense. 51 out of a 100 of those you elect ( you have the same system, more or less, there as here) make those decisions. They are provided bodyguards, at your expense, to make sure that their world is safe FOR THEM. NOT for you, "We have the police to pick up the pieces after someone is killed, or robbed, or raped, or whatever."

Jesus, Man, we have a Constition that, without lawyers, unequivically gurantees us a RIGHT to bear arms. You, and I am lumping you with the British, have a Treaty of Ghent, or is it Trent, where the nobles had the King of all the Brits agree that the Commoners actually were permitted to have the right to self defense.

You would give up all your rights to a minority who get enough votes to say "Them commoners shouldn't have any rights."?

These same minorities are the ones who get The Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the right to an abortion, the right to smoke in a bar/restaurant, now entire city of New York, to be forbidden.

We/you allow a minority to rule us, and they tell you that you will have more "safety", or security, and all it will cost is a little liberty A little liberty here, a little there, and what have you?

An interesting thing in our local paper today was a huge "sculpture" of a revolver with a knot in the barrell, recently, I guess, put on display in Cambodia. You remember Cambodia? The Khmer Rouge? Pol Pot? The Killing Fields? Where millions of unarmed people were killed?

The "sculpture" supposedly was made of all the "illicit" firearms turned in after the "amnesty" was declared.

Kinda like your own "Turn 'em all in, we'll pay you a "fair market price" for all the guns you throw on our scrap pile."

How CAN you be so gullible? Your own police force will tell you it might take half an hour to come to your aid, if they don't get a more important call, yet you re-elect the same bums, powermongers, all, and you mean nothing to them.

And when they do, again, it is to get someone to pay for killing you, the "State vs. So an So". You are a piece of "the State", and they are pissed that a taxpayer has been removed from the rolls, not that a jerk who WOULD not protect himself got wasted.

My God, I can't believe the number of you who will give up some liberties for a little safety, and you don't even get that, just fewer freedoms.

Society does NOT determine what you may or may not do, just a vocal minority, who will get the votes, along with some propaganda.

They tell you how much safer you will be, if you fall for their scheme, you jump at it. Then when it is just as it was before, they tell you we didn;t go quite far enough, but, just a little more liberty, and all will be well, we gotta fine tune this.

Ah, well,

Cheers,

George

I'm sorry I ddidn't mention Rhegedus' links before I made this response.
I'm not going to retype this to do so, but they are close to the ones I had mentioned before. Particularly to the snide question where the hell do you get this crap?
The Brits, and by extension, the Ozzies do have a problem they ( I shouldn't say they, because it is "You", the forum members, from the UK who are so vehement that crime is a gentlemanly thing in the UK/AU, we wouldn't think of using a gun on a real British subject, only the Dacoits, or any other foreigners),except the links from Rhegedus point to a couple people whose families probably go back a 1000 years.

[vitualis]

Ok....



Perhaps my faith in MY society is somewhat more robust than yours. Obviously you feel that what YOU think is more important than the rule of law.

I'm sorry that you feel so unsafe gmatov... the US is actually a pretty good country to live in. If you feel that you need to have to the ready capacity to kill someone to feel safe, then I feel sorry for you.

Regards.

[vitualis]

Umm, thats what trigger locks and gun safes are for....

And those little plastic plugs that go into unused powerpoints are to prevent kids from eletrocuting themselves too... and everyone uses them don't they??

Regards.

[rhegedus]

Surely there's a big difference between guns and electricity in their intended applications?