Gun Control What's your take???

noncom23 · #1 01-12-2013, 07:59 AM

JCL

Do you own any guns, by the way?

First:

Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Australian Bureau of Statistics

4530.0 - Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2010-11

Next:

I don't really see an astoundng change here. Yes reported homicides
are down, but robbery is climbing.
Assaults are up horribly.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Home

Victims of violent crime statistics
Victims of violent crimes from 1996 to 2007 (number)

Homicid Assault Sexual assault Robbery Kidnapping

1996 354 114,156 14,542 16,372 478
1997 364 124,500 14,353 21,305 564
1998 334 130,903 14,689 23,801 707
1999 385 134,271 14,699 22,606 766
2000 362 138,708 16,406 23,336 695
2001 347 152,283 17,577 26,591 767
2002 366 159,548 18,718 20,989 706
2003 341 157,280 18,025 19,709 696
2004 302 156,849 19,171 16,513 768
2005 301 166,507 18,695 17,176 730
2006 322 172,441 19,555 17,375 725
2007 282 176,427 19,781 17,988 730

Assaults continue to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 55 percent between 1996 and 2007.
The trend in sexual assault has also followed a general increase. The highest numbers of victims of sexual assault and of assault were recorded in 2007.
There were 282 victims of homicide in 2007: a 12 percent decrease from 2006 and the lowest number recorded in the past 12 years.
Continuing the trend since 2004, robbery offences increased again in 2007, to 17,988.
The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates from year to year. From 1996 to 2004, kidnappings registered a general increase, but the number of victims of kidnapping has remained relatively steady following a decline in 2005.

JCL · #2 01-12-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

JCL

Do you own any guns, by the way?

First:

Australian Bureau of Statistics:

<snip>

Not sure why it matters, but no. Several family members living in separate households do. They hunt deer, elk, moose, etc. Not people.

If we are talking gun control, shouldn't we look at gun violence? If you want to look at all violence you are going to have to consider a lot more causal factors, you can't just attribute it to guns. Especially when the stats are compiled so differently. Look at my comments in this thread, above, on what gets included in the 'violent crime' category in different countries.

noncom23 · #3 01-12-2013, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

Not sure why it matters, but no. Several family members living in separate households do. They hunt deer, elk, moose, etc. Not people.

If we are talking gun control, shouldn't we look at gun violence? If you want to look at all violence you are going to have to consider a lot more causal factors, you can't just attribute it to guns. Especially when the stats are compiled so differently. Look at my comments in this thread, above, on what gets included in the 'violent crime' category in different countries.

So you are saying all the assaults, robberies, sexual violence
happened without guns? Forget the fact that you backed up the statement that
the bureau didn't even exist?

JCL, you can twist this any way you want. Look at Europe. I did.
Clearly their gun violence is higer than the US.

Do some real research for once. Or just admit you are against guns and get it
overwith. We won't blame you. Your Socialist stance is fine.

But we have a Constitution here in the US. It is still the law of the land,
despite the disdain of many. The Second Amendment stands. Sorry
you disagree. Your argument for a Modern Society is just another
baseless attempt to take away OUR rights. We fought for these rights
once, and thats why we have weapons now.

JCL · #4 01-12-2013, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

So you are saying all the assaults, robberies, sexual violence happened without guns? Forget the fact that you backed up the statement that the bureau didn't even exist?

I am saying focus on the statistics for violent acts that included firearms, and don't warp the numbers by including acts that didn't, at least in relation to a discussion about gun violence. We would be able to better determine correlations then. Not clear on your bureau comment. There is no bureau. There is an institute, though. Those just aren't their numbers.

Quote:

JCL, you can twist this any way you want. Look at Europe. I did.
Clearly their gun violence is higer than the US.

Disagree. I posted earlier in this thread on that exact point. I won't repeat it.

Quote:

Do some real research for once. Or just admit you are against guns and get it over with. We won't blame you. Your Socialist stance is fine.

I am against gun violence. Guns are inanimate objects, I don't hate them or love them. I don't think much of gun culture. Not sure why there is apparent shame or blame in any of that. Don't understand your reference to a socialism. You know nothing about my politics. Socialism is a long way off, though.

Quote:

But we have a Constitution here in the US. It is still the law of the land,
despite the disdain of many. The Second Amendment stands. Sorry
you disagree. Your argument for a Modern Society is just another
baseless attempt to take away OUR rights. We fought for these rights
once, and thats why we have weapons now.

You are entitled to your opinions. I don't know why you would ascribe disdain to your constitution to others here, maybe you don't mean me. The constitution talks about well-regulated in talking about the reasons for an armed society, so I don't personally see the conflict, but that is up to your country. I don't get a vote. But why is Modern Society capitalized?

I think if guns are going to be used to fight 'tyranny' then the challenge is that the oppression of society, the tyrants, are largely financial, not military. And shooting bankers doesn't sound like a solution to me.

noncom23 · #5 01-12-2013, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

I am saying focus on the statistics for violent acts that included firearms, and don't warp the numbers by including acts that didn't, at least in relation to a discussion about gun violence. We would be able to better determine correlations then. Not clear on your bureau comment. There is no bureau. There is an institute, though. Those just aren't their numbers.

Disagree. I posted earlier in this thread on that exact point. I won't repeat it.

I am against gun violence. Guns are inanimate objects, I don't hate them or love them. I don't think much of gun culture. Not sure why there is apparent shame or blame in any of that. Don't understand your reference to a socialism. You know nothing about my politics. Socialism is a long way off, though.

You are entitled to your opinions. I don't know why you would ascribe disdain to your constitution to others here, maybe you don't mean me. The constitution talks about well-regulated in talking about the reasons for an armed society, so I don't personally see the conflict, but that is up to your country. I don't get a vote. But why is Modern Society capitalized?

I think if guns are going to be used to fight 'tyranny' then the challenge is that the oppression of society, the tyrants, are largely financial, not military. And shooting bankers doesn't sound like a solution to me.

To finish.

Amendment II

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.

Just to be clear on the text of the Second Amendment.

Modern Society is capitalized from your previous quote elsewhere
on our disagreement about guns. This gives the taste of a
Utopian ideology where weapons don't exist. This is the way
I took it from your statement.

JCL · #6 01-12-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

Modern Society is capitalized from your previous quote elsewhere on our disagreement about guns. This gives the taste of a
Utopian ideology where weapons don't exist. This is the way
I took it from your statement.

Thanks for that. I am not a promoter of a Utopian society. I am more of a pragmatist. I don't want to ban guns. I just think that solving gun crime by having more guns is illogical. It is like an arms race. And how did that all work out from the Cold War? As I recall, one side went bankrupt, and the other isn't too far behind.

TerminatorX5 · #7 01-12-2013, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

Thanks for that. I am not a promoter of a Utopian society. I am more of a pragmatist. I don't want to ban guns. I just think that solving gun crime by having more guns is illogical. It is like an arms race. And how did that all work out from the Cold War? As I recall, one side went bankrupt, and the other isn't too far behind.

speaking of that bankrupt side - since they withdrew from the arms race, pulled their troops from afghanistan, and basically went back into their cave for the last 20 years, they are not debt free and awash with oil money... scary... a wild bear with a lots of money... and, as we know, money talks...

EDIT: I mistyped "they are not debt free"... it should read "they are now debt free"

noncom23 · #8 01-12-2013, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

JCL

Do you own any guns, by the way?

First:

Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Australian Bureau of Statistics

4530.0 - Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2010-11

Next:

I don't really see an astoundng change here. Yes reported homicides
are down, but robbery is climbing.
Assaults are up horribly.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Home

Victims of violent crime statistics
Victims of violent crimes from 1996 to 2007 (number)

Homicid Assault Sexual assault Robbery Kidnapping

1996 354 114,156 14,542 16,372 478
1997 364 124,500 14,353 21,305 564
1998 334 130,903 14,689 23,801 707
1999 385 134,271 14,699 22,606 766
2000 362 138,708 16,406 23,336 695
2001 347 152,283 17,577 26,591 767
2002 366 159,548 18,718 20,989 706
2003 341 157,280 18,025 19,709 696
2004 302 156,849 19,171 16,513 768
2005 301 166,507 18,695 17,176 730
2006 322 172,441 19,555 17,375 725
2007 282 176,427 19,781 17,988 730

Assaults continue to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 55 percent between 1996 and 2007.
The trend in sexual assault has also followed a general increase. The highest numbers of victims of sexual assault and of assault were recorded in 2007.
There were 282 victims of homicide in 2007: a 12 percent decrease from 2006 and the lowest number recorded in the past 12 years.
Continuing the trend since 2004, robbery offences increased again in 2007, to 17,988.
The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates from year to year. From 1996 to 2004, kidnappings registered a general increase, but the number of victims of kidnapping has remained relatively steady following a decline in 2005.

I guess I have to quote myself. JCL, do have your glasses?
Can you see the link that says Bureau of Statistics?
I can't see any further point in trying to educate you.
You are stuck with your views. At least read the post.

JCL · #9 01-12-2013, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

I guess I have to quote myself. JCL, do have your glasses?
Can you see the link that says Bureau of Statistics?
I can't see any further point in trying to educate you.
You are stuck with your views. At least read the post.

Noncom: right back at you. In post 117 you reopened this and referenced the bureau of criminology. That is what we were discussing. I pointed out that there is no such thing. Read the link i provided. Then you introduced the bureau of statistics. Now you are continuing with the bureau of statistics theme. Which one shall we discuss? The real point is that in post 117, the blog link article was a fabrication.

noncom23 · #10 01-12-2013, 04:47 PM

Geeeeez. That bureau at the Crime selection I
linked to has the same stats.
Thats the bureau incorrectly quoted in your
blog, saying the bureau didn't exist.