Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

Lets see 311 murders, 65 using firearm in 1996 65/311 = 20.9%
Lets see 244 murders, 44 using firearm in 2011 40/244 = 16.39%


Amazing how when one digs into the details, the ACTUAL TREND for reduction in killings using a firearm is rather puny!


Yet the number of assaults with weapons keeps rising, hmmmm. Sure appears that the level of violence isnt being reduced, but just luck of the draw some of those arent killings, so sad.


Oh and as noted in GOVT. and recorded history, there was indeed a NASTY gang war going on in the 1980's to early 2000's. Has that ended matey, oh yes, it has hasnt it.


Oh whats this page #31,Homicide in Australia: 2007–08 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report 


http://aic.gov.au/documents/8/9/D/ %7b89DEDC2D-3349-457C-9B3A-9AD9DAFA7256%7dmr13_004.pdf


"............. The majority of firearms used in homicides were unregistered and/or unlicensed" hmmm, such a consistent trend all over the world that the bad guys dont obey the law to begin with!


All the while also refusing to acknowledge the effect of the baby boomers age subgroup as it affects crime rates. Geez, the Aussies had the Baby Boomers (born 1947-1964) also didn’t you, yeah you did!


Criminologists the world over all agree the most active criminal ages are 15-24 and 25-34, then the criminal activity declines the older a subgroup gets. Amazing how that actually mirrors identically the trend in murders DECREASING, a trend that Australian government shows began occurring back in the mid 1980's and continues to this day. Not to mention the ending of those gang turf battles.


Hence yet again, no valid proof that gun control had anything relevant to causing that reduction in murders., a near 42% drop in actual murders using a firearm in the US versus a 39% drop in murders using a firearm in Australia. 


Uh dude, there is no statistical difference is there, geez shuckey darn! 


Yet again proof that less firearms doesn’t equal less violence, much less more guns equal more violence BS.


You were saying?

2 weeks, 2 days ago on

Reply

By the way, what is a country, with gun bans suicide rate vs the US? Australia has 1/100th of our firearms, so they should have 1/100th of our suicide rate, uh dude, their 2010 suicide rate is 11.14 per 100k people.


What about murders, lets compare that as well.


1996 Australia 1.7 murders per 100k people 2011 1.08 murders per 100k people a -36.5% reduction


1996 US 7.4 murders per 100k people 2011 4.7 murders per 100k people a -36.5% reduction.


How is it again, that a country with a 42% increase in civilian firearm ownership and 100 times more firearms in law abiding civilian hands than Australia, have the same reduction in murders as they did?


Now if one breaks it down into weapons used if you take and look at the normal trend, one see's Australia reduction in murder by illegal use of firearms only reduced -4.41% from 1996 to 2011, the US from 1996 to 2011 was reduced  -26.5%.


http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02011?OpenDocument

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7bFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7dmr01.pdf


Oh wait, you forgot to mention the increases in weapons being used to commit murders or VIOLENT CRIME which the Australian government acknowledges in their reports, and reflect that indeed as noted, more WEAPONS and more KNIVES are being used to commit a crime REPLACING the use of a firearm. 


But hey dont let govt. FACTS get in the way of your fantasy. Since you already have a functioning link to the Australian crime database, you can try and refute their data again!


"A Transcript of the Police Interview With Martin Bryant" http : // loveforlife . com . au / content / 07 / 10 / 30 / transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant


Funny, how even before 1996, you needed a LICENSE to purchase a firearm, yet the Port Arthur killer didnt have one, yet that is somehow the LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS FAULT AGAIN EH?


So without the Port Arthur killings using a firearm only 65 occurred in 1996, which was 40 in 2011, wow thats impressive, NOT.


Geez, didnt the Port Author killings occur in 1996 making a spike in their killings, yeah it did. 


So is it a true reflection upon normal crime trends to add that anomaly/spike into the trends as a rational comparison to see what effect a law had on a result, no it isnt!


See that is where the gun banners like to use % to look impressive and quote the % of firearms used in murders has dropped SO DRAMATICALLy.

2 weeks, 2 days ago on

Reply

England -rates per 100k people

1898 1.0 murder rate no gun control

1997 1.3 murder rate, strict gun control implemented, 820 VCR

2011 1.0 murder rate 1,5867 VCR, murders have reduced to 1993 levels after a 25% increase. 


(ref Home Office UK) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/?view=Standard&pubID=1056123

Their murders have always been low, not due to gun control, and strict gun control didn’t reduce the murders, much less the violence, such a consistent trend in gun ban countries.


Lets compare England to US 2011(rate fallen/risen since 1991)

England 987,666 Violent Crime / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1,583.21 per 100k (78.67%)

US 1,203, 506 Violent Crime /311,591,917 X 100,000  =383.6 per 100k (-49.04%)

England 818,301 Assault / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1,295.15 per 100k (-36.15%)

US 751,131 Assault /311,591,917 X 100,000  = 241.06 per 100k (-44.36%)

England 77,684 Robbery / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 122.95 per 100k (32.9%)

US 354,396 Robbery /311,591,917 X 100,000  =113.73 per 100k  (-58.31%)

England 54,919 Rape / 63,181,775 x 100,000 =  86.92 per 100k (2.23%)

US 83,425 Rape /311,591,917 X 100,000  = 26.77 per 100k (-36.59%)

England 638 murder / 63,181,775 x 100,000 =  1.01 per 100k (-30.9%)

US 14,612 Murder /311,591,917 X 100,000  = 4.69 per 100k (-31.1%)

England 60 Murder w gun / 63,181,775 x 100,000 =  .095 per 100k (114%)

US 9,982 Murder w gun /311,591,917 X 100,000  = 3.17 per 100k (-52.51%)

Now the real problem irving has is showing how little Englands violent crime rates have fallen during their gun ban years, vs the US which has added 42% more firearms in law abiding civilians hands, but whose violent crime has fallen.

Man how is it that England, with 1/200th of our civilian owned firearms, can’t reduce their violent crime like the US did during the same time frame, while the US added another 42% in guns in law abiding civilians hands!

So much for less guns in law abiding civilians hands = less violence BS

So much for more guns in law abiding civilians hands = more violence BS

2 weeks, 2 days ago on

Reply

Per FBI UCR & CDC in 1991 24,700 murders, consistent % where firearms used is 67.8% =16,747 murders by illegal use of firearm, 15,383 suicides by firearms, 657 justifiable homicides, 1,463 accidental firearms deaths =34,250 deaths where firearms were used

2011 14,612 murders 67.7% used a firearm = 9,892, 591 justifiable homicides, 835 accidental deaths, 19,766 suicides = 31,084 deaths where a firearm was used.

Since 1991 to 2011, that is a reduction in…..



Totals / Rate



Violent Crime -37.04% / -49.04%


Murder w gun -41.31% / -52.51%


Rape -21.73% / -36.59% 


Robbery -48.47% / -58.31%


Assault -31.26% /-44.36%

Accidental deaths -41.9% / -52.14%


Amazing how those are the highest total reductions of ANY country in the world during that time!


So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 42% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn’t been a 42% increase in violence or suicide?


1991 suicide rate 12.2 per 100k people, if increased by 42% = 17.3 per 100k people

2010 suicide rate 11.9 per 100k people

2 weeks, 2 days ago on

Reply

Oh darn, here is just a sample of the countries, all of whom have strict gun control, and their murder rates by illegal use of a gun, care to do the 206 countries in the following link? 



http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf



Rate per 100k people


Honduras 68.4


El Salvador 39.9


Jamiaca 39.4


Venezuela 39


Guatemala 34.8


Columbia 27.1


Brazil 18.1


South Africa 17


Dominican Republic 16.3


Panama 16.1


Ecuador 12.7


Mexico 10


Paraguay 7.3


Haiti 6.09


Nicaragua 5.9


USA 3.6


2 weeks, 2 days ago on

Reply

@Oldwhiteguywithheart  


Based only on reported justifiable homicides…


1960-2012


Rate of violent crime reported involving a gun 26.8 (1990-2012 FBI UCR)


11,474,391 defensive gun uses (avg.per year 220,661)

35,368,382 people defended (avg. per year 680,161)

1,131,788 murders prevented (avg. per year 21,765)

6,507,782 injuries prevented (avg. per year, 125,149)


Oh wait, based on just FBI DATA we are UNDERCOUNTING how many murder and injuries are prevented…hmmm!


Cost saved by law abiding civilians armed self defense!



Jens Ludwig, an avid anti gun professor claimed gun violence cost the US $100 Billion a year in 2000 report using the whack-a-loons logic of basing their stimation on how much the public would be willing to pay to eliminate gun violence at 100 million households, or $1,000 dollars apiece, how stupid can one be, well guess the anti gunturds do continually demonstrated how stupid they truly are!



Since these quacks can’t disprove that the 97.3% of killings are by career criminals, gang members, suicider and doemstic violence abusers, it is safe to assume that the massive costs to the public are the direct result of criminal acts.

Yet all he and the CDC proposes affects the law abiding, such is the circle jerk of their illogic to blame all that on the law abiding gun owners to begin with, how rude and uncivil.



Now lets look at what the PHANTOM average cost is as referenced in Ludwig’s interesting one sided biased study.



nytimes.com/1999/08/04/us/annual-cost-of-treating-gunshot-wounds-is-put-at-2.3-billion.html



Now lets put more realistic $ numbers to the equation. So assuming emergency room care for each death and lost income of one year at $63,600, we can calculate approximately how much law abiding civilians have saved the public since 1960.



So assuming emergency room care for each injury and ongoing health care afterwards, but no data on how to add in lost wages (avg. age dependent to each incident), will leave that out for the moment = $50,000



Totals 1960-2012



Law abiding civilians



Murders Prevented: 1,131,788 = $2,087,275,125,883 saved


Injuries prevented: 6,507,782 = $1,067,305,771,958 saved



Criminals/gangs/crazies/domestic violence abusers



Murders: 482,794 = $859,307,807,299 cost incurred on public


Injuries: 2,896,762 = $120,532,214,103 cost incurred on
public



Suicide by illegal use of a gun



Deaths: 372,584 = $2,743,319,039 cost incurred to public


Injuries: 37,258 = $274,331,094 cost incurred to public



Accidental Firearm Discharge



Deaths: 54,019 = $$657,003,517 cost incurred to public


Injuries: 100,313 = $1,220,055,532 cost incurred to public



Benefit to public



Injuries prevented: 7,639,570 = $3,154,580, 897,842



Cost to public by criminals/suicides/accidents



Injuries: 3,943,730 = $984,734,731,394



Cost analysis



So law abiding gun owners provided a cost benefit to the public of 

+$3,154,580,897,842 Self defense saves lives cost benefit



-$984,734,731,934Bad guys cost 


+$2,169,846,166,448 Trillion dollars cost benefit to the public of law abiding gun owners self defense actions.




Amazing how law abiding armed self defense prevented murders and injuries that double the number of people killed and injured by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies, domestic violence abusers and accidental deaths.

2 weeks, 2 days ago on

Reply

@Oldwhiteguywithheart  


Lets see the video of a gun loading, aiming and firing itself, oh wait, only the insane believe that, go see a shrink sunshine!


Cras are registered for tax purposes alone and are not an affirmed right, another epic fail by a crazy lefty!


Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.

Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.

Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes

Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes

Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes.

Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No

If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No

Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes

Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No

Do I need a license to buy a car? No

(in most states)

Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.

Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes

Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes.

Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes

Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes

In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No

In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No

Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)

Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No

Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No

Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No

Do I need to "safe store" my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No

Will I lose my driver's license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes

Shall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars?

2 weeks, 2 days ago on

Reply