Jump to content
guilluamezenz

These four countries have nearly eliminated gun deaths - here's what the US can learn

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, harryramar said:

I agree. if you go camping yo should take a gun. but taking a gun to Walmart is hardly the same thing. 

unless one is that  terrified in which case a gun probably is not a good idea.

who besides those wimps in texas needs a gun to shop at Walmart? I guess those old greeters scare those he-men. LOL

 

 

I don't go shopping, but if I do have to go to the city (which is rare in itself), the two-legged critters can be just as bad or worse than four-legged critters. Ironically, I usually don't carry by myself - but if the family is with me that's a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

I don't go shopping, but if I do have to go to the city (which is rare in itself), the two-legged critters can be just as bad or worse than four-legged critters. Ironically, I usually don't carry by myself - but if the family is with me that's a different story.

I honor your right to carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 4:33 PM, CrimeaRiver said:

How many Chicago Negros live in Australia...? 

 

You're a racist !

 

391b2341-6fff-4d71-97cc-36a13749439d_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, harryramar said:

I agree. if you go camping yo should take a gun. but taking a gun to Walmart is hardly the same thing. 

unless one is that  terrified in which case a gun probably is not a good idea.

who besides those wimps in texas needs a gun to shop at Walmart? I guess those old greeters scare those he-men. LOL

 

 

The principal of taking a fun to Wal-Mart is to condition the public that carrying a gun doesn't mean anything nefarious is going on. 

 

While I think it is counter productive I understand the concept and it's thier right if Wal Mart allows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 6:07 PM, duck33 said:
On 2/8/2019 at 6:04 PM, ConConfounder said:

 

More phony gun-nut myths. 

 

 For every case of legitimate self defense, there are more than a dozen cases of someone shooting a family member, accidental lethal discharge of a gun killing a family member, or the suicude of a family member.....almost none of which would have happened in the absence of a firearm in the house. While some people would "still get killed in their own homes by spouses or partners", there would be far fewer of them, simply because guns are easy and quick, and all of the other means of murder are slower, less certain and easier to defend yourself against.....and gun violence is much less likely to occur because people have more time to cool off and have second thoughts if they can't just immediately grab their gun and blast away.

 

The so-called "benefits of having guns and the 2nd Amendment" are just illusions in the minds of gun-nuts and the firearm manufacturers who push the bogus pro-gun propaganda and myths. 

 

Making up stats and math now, huh? You should just admit you're wrong and learn. Once you start making crap up, you've lost.

 

Nope! You are just too stupid and ignorant to be able recognize truth if it bit you, moron. When you are that ignorant, you should just admit you're wrong and learn the actual facts. Once you start denying reality, you're lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 6:09 PM, MidnightMax said:

HERE'S MORE STUPIDITY from ME, MoronicMax, the HUGE SHlTSTAIN!!!!

 

GUN DEATHS don't even make the TOP 10!!

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/leading-causes-of-death#worldwide-causes

 

I LOVE EXPOSING MY COMPLETE MORONIC MANIPULATED SELF!!!

 

So what, moron? 

 

No one ever claimed that gun deaths are the leading cause of death in the world. Why do you idiotically imagine that would have any significance whatsoever??? This isn't a contest between causes of death, you flaming moron!

 

We're talking about the idiocy of American gun laws and the resulting carnage compared to more civilized nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used a 15 year old article to base your stupid argument on
I'll demonstrate

How many DGUs were there in 2017?
How many gun deaths were there in 2017?

Easy answers, feel free to Google.
I just want to see you post actual information
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 6:25 PM, Duck615 said:

If the 2nd goes so does the first... you fukking liberal asswipes better be real careful what you wish for!!!

 

That is totally insane!

 

The First Amendment....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

....is in no way dependent on the Second Amendment, you silly cretin, except perhaps in the crackpot myths of you frightened, ball-less gun-nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chuck! said:

You used a 15 year old article to base your stupid argument on
I'll demonstrate

 

Who are you talking to, Chuckles?

 

How about you "demonstrating" some common sense by citing the supposedly "15 year old article" and pointing to where it got posted. Otherwise, who knows what the hell you are mumbling about,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ConConfounder said:

 

That is totally insane!

 

The First Amendment....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

....is in no way dependent on the Second Amendment, you silly cretin, except perhaps in the crackpot myths of you frightened, ball-less gun-nuts.

The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed upon" suck fukkhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 12:30 PM, Golfboy said:

 

Mass shootings in America generally refer to some nutjob going someplace and killing a bunch of strangers. Over the last half century, America has had way more than a thousand such shootings by most counts, currently almost one per day. Although there are a number of different standards used to classify shootings, many lists of mass shootings don't include include domestic violence incidents where one family member shoots his family in their home.

 

Which is what happened in that "Margaret River mass shooting" in 2018, twenty-two years after Australia passed sensible gun control laws. And that incident is all you can come up with to dispute the success of those laws? You are a hilariously ridiculous and very pathetic gun-nut, Goofboy.

 

Even your own article states:

"In 2016, 20 years after the shooting in Tasmania, The Post's Christopher Ingraham cited research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that Australia had not had a mass shooting since the changes, and that suicide rates in the country had been on the decline."

 

You poor deluded retard!

 

Meanwhile, in the USA.....

The terrible numbers that grow with each mass shooting

The Washington Post

JULY 23, 2011

By Bonnie BerkowitzDenise Lu and Chris Alcantara

Updated Jan. 24, 2019
(excerpts)

 

The places change, the numbers change, but the choice of weapon remains the same. In the United States, people who want to kill a lot of other people most often do it with guns.

 

 

Public mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of the country’s gun deaths, but they are uniquely terrifying because they occur without warning in the most mundane places. Most of the victims are chosen not for what they have done but simply for where they happen to be.

 

There is no universally accepted definition of a public mass shooting, and this piece defines it narrowly. It looks at the 161 shootings in which four or more people were killed by a lone shooter (two shooters in a few cases). It does not include shootings tied to gang disputes or robberies that went awry, and it does not include domestic shootings that took place exclusively in private homes. A broader definition would yield much higher numbers.

 

This tally begins Aug. 1, 1966, when a student sniper fired down on passersby from the observation deck of a clock tower at the University of Texas. By the time police killed him, 17 other people were dead or dying. As Texas Monthly’s Pamela Colloff wrote, the shooting “ushered in the notion that any group of people, anywhere — even walking around a university campus on a summer day — could be killed at random by a stranger.

1,148 killed

The people who were killed came from nearly every imaginable race, religion and socioeconomic background. Their ages range from the unborn to the elderly; 189 were children and teenagers. In addition, thousands of survivors were left with devastating injuries, shattered families and psychological scars.

308 guns

Shooters often carried more than one weapon; one was found with 24. At least 172 of mass shooters’ weapons were obtained legally and 58were obtained illegally. It’s unclear how 78 weapons were acquired.

Semiautomatic rifles

Semiautomatic rifles have been used in some of the country’s deadliest shootings, such as those in Newtown, Orlando, San Bernardino and Las Vegas. The AR-15, a lightweight, customizable version of the military’s M16, soared in popularity after a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004. Some of the Las Vegas shooter’s guns had been fitted with legal devices called “bump-fire stocks,” which allow semiautomatic rifles to fire as quickly as automatic ones.

Semiautomatic pistols

The country’s most popular type of firearm, 9mm semiautomatic handguns, are used by many law enforcement officers. They are generally light and inexpensive, easy to conceal and control, and they fire as quickly as a person can pull the trigger. The gunman who killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech in 2007 used a 9mm semiautomatic Glock 19 (and a .22-caliber Walther P22, another popular caliber). In this data, 9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon.

165 shooters

Some of these mass shooters were known to have violent tendencies or criminal pasts. Others seemed largely fine until they attacked. All but 3were male. The vast majority were between the ages of 20 and 49. More than half — 91 of them — died at or near the scene of the shooting, often by killing themselves.

161 shootings

In the 50 years before the Texas tower shooting, there were just 25 public mass shootings in which four or more people were killed, according to author and criminologist Grant Duwe. Since then, the number has risen dramatically, and many of the deadliest shootings have occurred within the past few years.

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 5:02 AM, guilluamezenz said:

Firearm suicides dropped to 0.8 per 100,000 people in 2006 from 2.2 in 1995, while firearm homicides dropped to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006 from 0.37 in 1995

 

No where does the statement say the suicide / homicide rates have gone down !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duck615 said:

The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed upon" suck fukkhead

 

It doesn't matter what the "2nd Amendment" says, F*ckbreath.

 

What matters is that it CAN, and SHOULD BE, repealed or rewritten. As obsolete Amendments have been eliminated in the past, like the 18th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ConConfounder said:

 

It doesn't matter what the "2nd Amendment" says, F*ckbreath.

 

What matters is that it CAN, and SHOULD BE, repealed or rewritten. As obsolete Amendments have been eliminated in the past, like the 18th.

for 150 years second amendment was interpreted to mean states had a right to form a militia till 2008  when that changed 

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine,January 14, 1990.

 

In 2008, this fraud was furthered by Mr. Scalia, joined by his fellow ideologues Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy.  Yet five zealots in black robes cannot change the historical record. Writing something down on paper or pushing the send button to the internet doesn't make it so. Scalia and gang, in ganging together to pen District of Columbia v. Heller, cannot change history, anymore than a Truther diary about how the 9-11 hijackers were Republican ideologues giving their lives for Bush and Cheney, makes such idiocy so.

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ConConfounder said:

 

Who are you talking to, Chuckles?

 

How about you "demonstrating" some common sense by citing the supposedly "15 year old article" and pointing to where it got posted. Otherwise, who knows what the hell you are mumbling about,.

 

I challenged you to post real numbers by answering two simple questions
If you answer them honestly you will give the lie to your earlier nonsense
Therefore, you won't answer
Now go tell some more lies

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 4:23 PM, Chuck! said:

 

Most certainly did.
Yes or no, do you favor law abiding citizens walking around armed for their own protection?
Yes or no?

 

 

I keep a basebat bat in my car for occasions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

 

Who are you talking to, Chuckles?

 

How about you "demonstrating" some common sense by citing the supposedly "15 year old article" and pointing to where it got posted. Otherwise, who knows what the hell you are mumbling about,.

 

51 minutes ago, Chuck! said:

I challenged you to post real numbers by answering two simple questions
If you answer them honestly you will give the lie to your earlier nonsense
Therefore, you won't answer
Now go tell some more lies

 

I challenged you to explain your claim about a supposed "15 year old article" by citing it and showing us where it was posted. You seem to be too stupid to manage that simple task. Until you explain what you are talking about, I couldn't care less about your "two simple-minded questions".

 

Or, in other words, fook off, moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

Even your own article states:

"In 2016, 20 years after the shooting in Tasmania, The Post's Christopher Ingraham cited research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that Australia had not had a mass shooting since the changes, and that suicide rates in the country had been on the decline."

 

But pogorocks,  first, as I noted in my earlier post, even Wikipedia shows that the 10 year moving average of gun related homicides in Australia has not decreased since "the changes".

 

 

 

GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Australia-Mass-H

 

Second, Australia's homicide rate ...

 

australia-united-states-homicide-rates-b

 

... was declining before the buy back program at about the same rate it did after.    So arguably, the Australia gun bans actually made no difference.  Plus, you can see that the US rate dropped as well, without a similar gun control measure.   All which supports the assertion that gun control is not why Australia's rate dropped.   Something else made the difference.   Which is why homicides due to other types of weapons also dropped during that timeframe ...

 

GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Australia-Homici

 

Plus, charts on the firearm suicide rate suggest something other than gun control is reduce the numbers.   Here ...

 

firearm%20suicides%20australia.jpg

 

You can clearly see that the firearm suicide rate was dropping for nearly a decade before the gun buy back.     And it was dropping at exactly the same rate it continued dropping after the buy back began.   So one can argue that the buy back had no impact ... that whatever was causing the rate to drop before the buy back was just causing the rate to drop further.

 

Furthermore, you've again overlooked the fact that in that same time period, according to data from the Australian Institute of Criminology ( http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/facts/1-20/2011.html), Australia's overall violence rate rose 42%. Rapes increased 30%. Robberies increased 6.2%. Assault rose 49%. Whereas in America, without similar gun control, at a time when more and more communities were allowing ordinary citizens to carry guns, the overall violent crime rate decreased 32%. Rape dropped 19%. Robbery decreased 33%. Aggravated assault dropped 32%. This seems to me to prove that forceably removing guns from Australian society made their society less safe. 

 

And as I noted earlier, a study comparing mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand:   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854 said that “New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.”   But unlike Australia, after 1997 “New Zealand remained armed to the teeth -- including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.”   And they found that “While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.”    Again, gun control does not appear to be the reason for what's happening.

 

Just saying ... 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 4:43 AM, harryramar said:

oh look a scared little man who needs guns to feel less terrified of life. I picture yo as one of these pussies who can't goo to Walmart without packing a rod you are so scared. grow a ball you kunt fart. 

come try to take my guns too !! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the reality-challenged gun-nuts in their desperation, lie about everything, all the time....

 

In the real world of checkable facts.....

Gun Control in Australia, Updated

FactCheck

By Eugene Kiely

Posted on October 4, 2017 | Updated on October 6, 2017


In 2009, we wrote an Ask FactCheck item for readers who wanted to know, “Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?” The answer at the time was “no,” and that’s still the case.

 

In fact, the most recent government report on crime trends in Australia says, “Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years.”

 

We thought it was time to update our 2009 article on Australian gun laws, because that story — which is now more than eight years old — has seen a sudden spike in traffic as a result of the horrific gun massacre at an outdoor country music concert in Las Vegas.

As reported by the New York Times, the gunman, Stephen Craig Paddock, 64, used semi-automatic weapons outfitted with a “bump stock” device that allowed him to quickly fire multiple rounds at concertgoers from his luxury suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. He killed nearly 60 people and wounded more than 500 others.

 

In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement after a mass shooting in Tasmania in April of that year. In that incident, a 28-year-old man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and injured 18 others, in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre.

 

Under the 1996 law, Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law.

 

During the buyback program, Australians sold 640,000 prohibited firearms to the government, and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent.

 

In 2002, Australia further tightened gun laws, restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

Since 1996, the number and rate of homicides — defined as murder and manslaughter — has fallen. Below is the chart that appeared in our 2009 Ask FactCheck article, showing a 20 percent decline in homicides from 1996 to 2007.

 

homicides_australia_chart2007.jpg

 

We wrote at the time: “Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.”

 

The crime statistics above were taken from the AIC’s annual report called “Australian crime: facts and figures 2008.” The most recent report, “Australian crime: facts and figures 2014,” which was released last year, shows that homicides remained low through 2013.

 

The previous low in 2007 was surpassed in 2010, when the number of homicides dropped to 261. The numbers have varied since then, but there were 23 percent fewer homicides in 2013 than there were in 1996 — a slight improvement from our last report, which covered a 12-year period ending in 2007.

 

The chart below illustrates the number of homicides in Australia since our 2009 article.

 

Revised-Australia-chart.png

 

With Australia’s population steadily increasing, the nation’s homicide incident rate has fallen even more than the number of homicides — from 1.6 per 100,000 in 1995-96 to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-2014, according to a government report on crime trends. That was the lowest homicide incident rate at the time in 25 years, as we mentioned earlier.

 

The number of firearm-related homicides also has dropped substantially since the 1996 gun law was enacted.

“The number of homicide incidents involving a firearm decreased by 57 percent between 1989-90 and 2013-14,” the government crime trends report says. “Firearms were used in 13 percent of homicide incidents (n=32) in 2013-14. In 1989-90 it was 24 percent (n=75) of incidents.”

 

Is this evidence that Australia’s laws reduced gun violence and homicides? In our 2009 story, we wrote that there was no consensus on that point.

 

For example, we wrote that a 2003 AIC study looked at rates of firearm-related deaths between 1991 and 2001 and found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides, as well) began before the 1996 law was enacted.

 

On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the gun law passed. “Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides,” the authors of that study wrote.

 

In 2011, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, co-authored a paper that reviewed the available studies, as of 2011, on the effect of Australia’s buyback program on firearm deaths. He wrote that “many studies … found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.”

 

Hemenway and his Harvard colleague and co-author, Mary Vriniotis, summarized the evidence in support of the theory that the buyback program saved lives:

  • “While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
  • “In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
  • “In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
  • “[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write.

 

“Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA — the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide,” the authors write.

 

Update, Oct. 6: A reader took issue with our chart for homicides in Australia from 2008 to 2013, because we didn’t use a zero-based vertical axis. That’s a fair point. We have updated this article to replace that chart with one that uses a zero-based vertical axis. 

We also now provide a new chart (see below) that uses a zero-based vertical axis and combines the data from both charts. The new chart covers homicides in Australia from 1996, when the National Firearms Agreement was enacted, through 2013, which is the most recent data available in the annual Australian crime reports. 

 

Australia-homicides.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kfools said:

The principal of taking a fun to Wal-Mart is to condition the public that carrying a gun doesn't mean anything nefarious is going on. 

 

While I think it is counter productive I understand the concept and it's thier right if Wal Mart allows it.

i am pretty sure those asssholes in texas are a bunch of pussies. that is based on their carrying assault weapons to the store  and their rsenator ted cruz being such a pussy he sucked up to the orange thug after trump called his old lady a dog. 

what the fcuk happened to texas that there are spo many pussies in 10 gallon hats???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, harryramar said:

carrying assault weapons 

 

nate%20looking%20out_zpsqh54mkf0.jpg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

 

It doesn't matter what the "2nd Amendment" says, F*ckbreath.

 

What matters is that it CAN, and SHOULD BE, repealed or rewritten. As obsolete Amendments have been eliminated in the past, like the 18th.

Hey dumbass... they can't be eliminated... go back to school or stfu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I keep a basebat bat in my car for occasions.  

 

Still refusing to answer the question, I see.

What is it about the truth that makes anti gunners flee?

 

 

10 hours ago, ConConfounder said:

 

 

I challenged you to explain your claim about a supposed "15 year old article" by citing it and showing us where it was posted. You seem to be too stupid to manage that simple task. Until you explain what you are talking about, I couldn't care less about your "two simple-minded questions".

 

 

I asked you first
You're lying, and you know it
That's why you won't post real numbers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×