Australia firearm deaths: (only 'till 2001 though)
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269.pdf

It sounds like the response I get a lot. When I disagree with a liberal they automatically assume I must be a conservative; when I disagree with a conservative, they automatically assume I'm a liberal. I'm actually neither -- my political philosophy is libertarian; both sides of the political spectrum have a constant "love-hate" relationship with the things I say!

...and being libertarian I disagree with both! Both represent a violation of property rights.



Can you say "Social Security"? What about "income tax" or "sales tax"? Or maybe "building permit" or "business license"? Try to conduct business free from these interferences and people with guns will come to arrest you! Granted, there are both conservative and liberal positions supporting this interference (again, a reason I'm libertarian), but generally, liberals are substantially less business friendly than conservatives -- just look at how people are lining up politically on the current social security reform debate.


You need to listen to the leaders of the gun control groups (nearly all of them share a liberal philosophy) -- their goal is the elimination of all private ownership of guns; many of them have said such in plain English.

I'm always left asking: What do people who want to ban or "regulate" firearms plan to do to me that my ownership of guns is even a concern to them? If you are a person who respects my rights, my firearms pose no threat to you what-so-ever! So why do you want to "regulate" them? What is in your plans that my ownership of guns should even be an issue?

Well, it looks like homicide deaths went from 107 (1996 prelaw) to 47 (2001 postlaw) - thanks Ubiquity0.

These countries could have a major increase in gun related homicide death and still not reach our level even accounting the difference in population. I don't expect gun control to change crime rates (that's economic and ethical, mostly). Just to reduce gun related violence and homicide.

Agree with you Chris, we can't attribute the 50% reduction in AUS exclusively to gun control. The hyped awareness the gun control issue brings to the subject of gun violence and general violence along with a determination to change is the real cause. Gun control is just one, maybe 10-20% of the equation, of what is really a cultural issue.

Our culture has a history of using guns to settle disputes. Look at the mythology of the wild west. It permeates our culture out of all proportion to its actual time of, what, maybe 20-30 years? Maybe the crime increase in GB is just another example of "culture transfer"?

Chris B's comment about the Swiss is exactly on point because they really match the intention of the 2nd amendment - a citizen based militia. Switzerland has two advantages: a cultural heritage of resolving conflict without violence (much less gun violence) and the entire male population takes part in military training and proper use of weapons. Training is a form of regulation because it changes peoples mindset about the proper use of weapons. Swizerland has a long hunting tradition that also helps.

So, why support gun control if the problem is cultural? It's just one tool in the box but it is one that should be used.

CompetentOne -
Just found the things you associate with liberal thought interesting. I did assume that you meant them as negative examples - am I correct?

You raise property rights to a level society has found unusable in practice. All rights have limits in real life - with the consent of the governed. Most of the governed population do not consider social security, taxes, permits, or licenses to be interferences. They consider them benefits and necessary to conduct business and real life on an equal playing field. I pay taxes to support our country - I think it's a good and patriotic thing to do. Remember, one of the reasons the US was founded was the idea that taxation would be for the benefit of the governed rather than for some distant land or population - not for the elimination of tax.

Just one example, consider the earthquake death toll in countries that ignore or don't have "building permits" versus US death tolls - most people agree that "building permits" and contractors and engineers with "licenses" is a good thing. I am in that majority. The regulatory environment you describe - without these things - sounds like anarchy rather than liberty. Recent libertarian thought regarding taxes sounds more and more like philosophically justified selfishness rather than an expression of personal liberty.

If liberals are "substantially less business friendly" why is California so successful?
Why is national GPD higher (admittedly a small percentage) under Democratic vs Republican administrations?

A few idiots does not a conspiracy make. Again, most people do not want to take away your guns - they just want to reduce gun related violence. What is your solution?

If you are going to look at the issues of gun ownership and crime rates across different countries, then you should not ignore the question of why the gun homicide rate is so extreme in countries like Great Britain, Japan and Australia when measured against the total number of privately owned firearms in those countries.

You need to look at the gun homicide rate measured against the total number of guns in a country. (Remember, those seeking to control firearms are suggesting there is a relationship between the number of guns and the gun death rate.)

Most numbers I've heard suggest that there are roughly 250 million privately owned firearms in the United States -- roughly a gun for every man, woman and child.

Japan, Great Britain and Australia have how many privately owned guns? Maybe a few thousand? Only one firearm per how many thousand people?

Comparing our thousands of deaths involving the use of a firearm with just the hundreds of deaths in countries like Great Britain, Japan and Australia, at first blush, might make our country look like it's an extremely violent place, but if you consider that their gun deaths happen with only thousands of privately owned firearms you come to a shocking conclusion:

If Japan, Great Britain or Australia had a population with the same "saturation" of guns as we have here in the U.S. -- and if they kept their same "deaths per owned gun" rate, their populations would be wiped-out virtually overnight!

I'm not trying to take away your guns. I don't think there is an exact formulaic relationship of the number of guns to the number of homicide deaths. Your argument apparently assumes everyone with a gun either wants to kill someone or commit a crime with a gun. Gun control is just one way to reduce gun death and gun related crime. What is your solution?

That would seem very impressive if one didn't look at the facts. Of course, this is exactly the sort of statitistical legerdermain used to support gun regulation or bans. Now look at the figures in context.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1110124817.jpg

Would a reasonable person posit that the gun ban somehow caused handgun accident rates to increase the next 3 years following the '97 ban [1997(19), 1998(21), 1999(28), 2000(45)]? Of course not. That would be as intellectually dishonest as picking homicide deaths in 1996 and 2001.

Gun deaths had been steady declining and once the ban went into effect they (surprise) continued to decline.

I agree that culture is everything. Passing laws to remove guns from the law abiding doesn't change that culture. Leaving the the door of a city house unlocked won't make it safer just because people in the country leave their doors unlocked.

-Chris

You don't want to "take away" my guns, but you have stated that you want to "regulate" them. What does that mean? Do you know how much regulation there already is? How much more do you want? At what point does "regulation" become an effective "ban"?

Those who want to ban or "regulate" guns are normally assuming that "everyone with a gun wants to either kill someone or commit a crime with a gun" -- consider the recent comments from the Violence Policy Center regarding FN's innovative Five-SeveN handgun; it represents a fantastic innovation in firearm and ammunition development; I love new technology, the Five-SeveN is a gun I want to own. But the VPC would tell you something like, "there is no other reason to own this gun than to kill police officers" -- what are they trying to say are the motivations of my hobby?

I still don't understand how you can conclude that "Gun control is just one way to reduce gun death and gun related crime"?

Either you must expect that the criminal element is going to obediently follow gun laws, or you look upon your fellow citizens as "bad children that cannot be trusted with guns" and you expect that if "father-government" would just step-in and take away guns, all the "bad children" would start behaving nicely?

You want to know what my solution is to control crime and violence? I say let’s have every peace-loving, law-abiding citizen armed... and have every criminal so scared of being "blown away" that they decide it's safer to not commit crime.

I also see de-criminalization of drugs as a solution toward eliminating massive amounts of crime. But that's a whole new topic.

OK BOYZ ..TIME TO BECOME POLITICALLY UNCORRECT. U boyz brought up statistics....Do the break down of Firearm deaths by ETHNIC GROUP in the USA....and you will find that Hispanics and Blacks account for roughly 75% of ALL Deaths....and represent apx 35% of the population...

At this point gun controlers can be accused of being RACIST, ... (Does poverty and lack of education have anything to do with it?) or are miniority peoples just not capable of being responsible, and able to control their impulsive behavior....

Competentone....

Not everyone is emotionally prepared to be trusted with a firearm. I have met more than a few of these individuals in my lifetime. I would not want to live close or next to such an individual.

As far as regulation; it is far too late since there are hundreds of millions of firearms already out there, but, in my view, what is wrong with registering weapons the same way that vehicles are registered? The idea that registration somehow limits the individual's rights seems to be based more on emotion than fact. What registration does is provide some form of identification if the article in question is involved in an illegal action. Are some gun owners afraid of being held responsible for ownership and actions involving their firearms? If so, Why?

I am gun neutral. I can see their usefulness in many situations. But, I am not worried about being overly macho either, and am fairly confident so I don't need some piece of chromed steel to bolster my personal self image. Furthermore, owning an entire arsenal makes little sense unless you are, in some way, shape, or form, planning an insurrection.

Hunters, take note: Living in a rural area with free range makes for good hunting and, in some instances, property protection from individuals intent on criminal mischief and from predators. Both situations speak in the affirmative for gun ownership. City dwellers in heavily populated areas for extreme self protection appears to also fill the criteria for gun ownership. Assault weapons, originally designed for the battlefield do not fill these criteria and are not designed for individual self defense. They do not simply wound, nor are they, in the hands of an unskilled individual, very accurate.

So, I agree with individual ownership. I agree that there should, however, be some limitations on the types of weapons permitted and that it would be a positive if all weapons (which I stated above is not possible) were registered.

Hate to tell you but Guns are Registered....Every state has the Brady Bill for a background checkand some have more restricitve laws (inclusive of gun shows)... each gun is on the FFL Dealers register...both where it came from and where it went to..the BATF can come in at anytime without a warrant and inspect your business premises....

Nope. A reasonable person would argue that it just reduced it back to the ('96 pre-control) averages in the chart and slowly reduced them further below the pre-control numbers. Just like the slope of the graph - gun regulation as a means of reducing gun related violence.

Maybe we need different regulations to make them work better - to fine tune them if you will.
But no regulations ? No changes ?

Like don't allow MINIORITIES to own guns.....is that what you are proposing JSDSKI....

Nope.

Even though they are constantly being bypassed there are multiple laws on the books that prevent any type of national gun registration.

They are there because of the history of the NAZIs and other nations that used such lists of weapons holders to disarm citizens.

You only need to get a licence or register your vehicle if you plan to operate it on a public road. That kind of state interference is not required if you plan on only using your vehicle on private property.

Here in florida the only special licencing one needs from the state to have a gun is a CCW permit for people that want to carry a weapon in public places. No such state interference is required if you only plan on using your weapon on private property.

Sounds like a pretty good system to me. It appears that the 'we need more weapon regulation' people are clueless as to how much weapons regulation there already is.

Well then you should take a look at the number of Federal Laws and State laws there are concerning guns....and you will find that guns for the most part are highly regulated....are they all enforced ...nope...not enough manpower...but if you are popped for something it's just one more charge to add to the list...

I'm not assuming that at all - that's silly.

You made the point about comparing the homicide rate to total gun ownership. I think your point falsely assumes that everyone with a gun would use it on one another and "their populations would be wiped-out virtually overnight!"

Still looking for creative ideas to reduce gun related violence.

OK....have the Media (films, TV, MUsic) stop showing that the way to solve ones problems is through the use of violence....

Competentone: there is an awful lot more than "a few thousand" guns in Australia. Something like 700,000 were destroyed in the govt's 'buyback' scheme, and this was believed to be 1/7th of the guns at that time (19.4% of households there own guns, versus 39% in the US). Hence there must still be several million guns, not "a few thousand".

edit: I guess this number also doesn't take into account that not every household owning a gun has one and only one (i.e. this is clearly not the case in the US)

Not everyone is emotionally prepared to be trusted with an automobile. I have met more than a few of these individuals in my lifetime. I would not want to live close or next to such an individual.

As far as restriction; it is far too late since there are millions of automobiles already out there, but, in my view, what is wrong with putting in place regulations on automobiles the same way that guns are regulated? The idea that more regulation somehow limits the individual's rights seems to be based more on emotion than fact. What if we required that an FBI background check take place before a person could buy a car? Perhaps some type of "emotional attitude" psychological test before a person could be licensed to drive could help reduce incidents of road rage? Are some car owners afraid of being held responsible for ownership and actions involving their owning automobiles? If so, Why?

I am car neutral. I can see their usefulness in many situations. But, I am not worried about being overly macho either, and am fairly confident so I don't need some piece of chromed steel to bolster my personal self image. Furthermore, owning an entire fleet or some souped-up race car makes little sense unless you are, in some way, shape, or form, planning to violate the speed limit and endanger the lives of others who just want to travel safely on our roadways.

Commuters, take note: Living in the suburbs with open roads makes for good driving and, in some instances, could actually be life-saving -- imagine if a loved one went into cardiac arrest, a car could help you get to the hospital quickly. The situation speaks in the affirmative for car ownership. City dwellers in heavily populated areas for transportation in the event of weather or other emergencies appears to also fill the criteria for car ownership. Sports cars, originally designed for the race track do not fill these criteria and are not designed for individual transportation. They do not provide acceptable luggage carrying capabilities, nor are they, in the hands of an unskilled individual, very safe.

So, I agree with individual automobile ownership. I agree that there should, however, be some limitations on the types of cars permitted and that it would be a positive if all cars (which I stated above is not possible) were required to be regulated to the same extent as firearms. After all, when you compare the death rates from automobile accidents to the rates for firearm accidents, you can see that there is a serious problem with automobile ownership.