Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings:
Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Now all this statistical and factual information isn’t going to mean anything to Lefty’s and Statists, but it is always good to know that reality backs up the conservative position on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.
Those pesky facts keep coming up....
ReplyDeleteYep, socialism is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteUPDATED, 12:37 p.m. PT: At least one person was shot when a student opened fire at a high school in California on Thursday morning, authorities there say.
ReplyDeleteThe shooting occurred in the science building at Taft Union High School in Taft, Calif., at approximately 9 a.m. local time, a Kern County Sheriff's official told Yahoo News.
The suspected shooter—a 16-year-old male student at the school—did not show up for the start of first period, police say. He entered the school with a 12-gauge shotgun and interrupted his first-period class, shooting one student police say he was targeting.
Morning all,
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to provide balance,I have reprinted the official figures from the Australian Government Statistics office. The figures are self explanatory and the only additional information you should need is that the “Gun Laws” became operational in 1995/6
In all honesty,I must point out that whilst gun homicide has dropped to historically low levels,stabbings have risen to serious levels.It is believed that the change in demographics,with many more Asian and Middle Eastern settlers may have a bearing on this but I have seen no documented evidence to support the contention.
Cheers from Aussie
Number of recorded crimes
Violent crime
Violent crime includes homicide, assault, sexual assault, robbery and kidnapping (sometimes referred to as abduction). Although robbery may include an element of property crime, it is included as a violent crime, as the use or threat of violence is considered a more serious offence than the theft.
Table 1: Victims of selected violent crimes, 1996–2010 (n)
Homicidea Assault Sexual assault Robberyb Kidnapping/abduction
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 366 160,118 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 17,176 729
2006 321 172,441 19,555 17,375 726
2007 283 176,077 19,954 17,996 733
2008 293 170,720 19,992 16,513 788
2009 293 175,277 18,807 15,238 564
2010 260 171,083 17,757 14,582 603
Why - in a discussion about gun-related violence - must we discuss our violent culture, video games, the media, rap/heavy metal music, mental health issues, and other historically oppressive governments/other countries - basically everything but guns?
ReplyDeleteI agree that all aspects/issues should be included in the discussion, but why is including guns in the discussion taboo?
And before somebody calls me a "statist" or a "commie" or something, let me state for the record that I support the 2nd Amendment.
I don't currently own a gun, but I did for years when I lived alone and traveled a lot. Father taught me to shoot a handgun when I was a kid and gave me a Browning 9mm for protection when I moved out. He insisted, felt it was important for a young woman on her own to have it. Fortunately, I never needed it, but yeah - I'd much rather have it and not need it then ... well, you get the point.
But yeah, in a discussion of gun-related violence and guns laws, while addressing all relevant issues is important, must include guns, no?
Posting the stats about all the violent crime that occurs in another gunless country doesn't really change the fact that thousands of Americans are killed and/or wounded in thousands of instances of gun violence every year.
It really needs to be a part of a rational discussion about guns. If fact, I would submit that a discussion about guns is inherently irrational if you can't include the subject of "guns" ...
There are an estimated three hundred million guns in America. Almost one for every man woman and child. While it is always disturbing when senseless violence occurs, the fact remain that our culture promotes inner city carnage. Mostly black on black.
DeleteYeah guns are an important part of the equation. A much larger integer for consideration has to be the low level of expectation we place on our young men of minorities. This is a national tragedy that our current president could have a substantial impact upon if he truly cared. But here he is, down in the weeds of things like Obamanomics, a field he absolutely knows nothing about.
Lack of value placed on life, beginning with our abortion of so many babies. So many lives lost to selfishness. Imprinting on the brains of young men and women that life is cheap.
Dammit, life is not cheap. In the womb, or on our mean streets, life is not cheap! Pay attention!
In spirit William, I have to agree with you here. Possibly, you see only abortion as the selfishness. I see a disrespect and selfishness that is much greater then what you would attribute to abortion. Many people in this country don't even respect themselves and take care of themselves let alone consider others. Your second para has a kernel of truth, a kernel void of a larger context of course, but a kernel nonetheless.
DeleteYour point about there being almost enough guns for every man woman and child to have one is interesting, especially since others, perhaps not you, claim the real problem is that there aren't enough guns.
Why - in a discussion about gun-related violence - must we discuss our violent culture, video games, the media, rap/heavy metal music, mental health issues, and other historically oppressive governments/other countries - basically everything but guns?
DeleteSeems to me that it is the only thing being talked about. Their is no serious discussion about the entertainment industry and other than an 'adult content' label stuck to a cd case, their is no discussion about why the music offers up so much hate. As far as using history and comparison to asses the effectiveness of gun laws... are you kidding? Do you think as Kingston appears to, that the US and Australia are exempt from morphing to an oppressive government? I don't know how many times I have heard people say that we should look at the laws of others when writing our own but now you want to remove the comparison from the discussion..... The only thing that is being talked about is guns and the 2nd amendment as if that IS the fix for all of our problems.
Your answer and the lack of discussion here: http://mwamericanpolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/generation-me.html
is very telling. Just why are we so self absorbed and what movements in society have lead us to think that way?
Morning, all.
DeleteI think the issue of firearms and ammunition does need to be part of the discussion as do background checks (esp at trade shows), mental checks, and the culture of violence. I also think arms and ammunition, (an easy target, yes?) has received an unbalanced focus. At best, as I understand it, Biden is going to meet with the entertainment industry yet this week, but I get the impression this will be not much more than a sop, just so the administration can say they are doing the equivalent of 'casting a wide net'. Sorry, I'm a bit cynical. It's unfortunate, but I think the administration is taking the sad, awful tragedy as an opportunity to diminish the NRA and in the process try to adhere a little bit more mud on the Republican party.
Sad. The whole thing is sad, except for those who were murdered. That is a tragedy.
Jean
"Their is no serious discussion about the entertainment industry and other than an 'adult content' label stuck to a cd case, their is no discussion about why the music offers up so much hate"
DeleteMusic and other forms of art are always a reflection on society, a snapshot. There is a lot of hate in music because there is a lot of hate in society already. Music is reflecting, not creating a general attitude; impressionism versus realism? I personally believe it is overdue to have reasonable restrictions on guns, such as not being allowed to have a weapon whose only difference from military grade is that it isn't fully automatic, which by the way, is easily accomplished with a kit. But, that said, I nonetheless believe that simply taking away these kinds of weapons is not going to fix the problem.
To your point Jean, I tend to agree it is just PR.
"to diminish the NRA and in the process try to adhere a little bit more mud on the Republican Party."
DeleteJean
This only makes sense to an Aussie if we turn it on its head and consider the political implications first.
From your reply to me a few days back, I now understand that as a general rule the Repubs are supportive of the NRA and the Dems are opposed. (Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your remarks)
So, does it not follow that rather than untold misery and death from firearm use, the possible resolution of the problem lies with the government (state or federal?)
If we accept this premise, could not the Dems run in two years time on a platform including gun control?
I come back to your statement in another post "we do not have any guns and are not looking to get any’. It is my belief that you are part of the majority of Americans who are not armed and do not feel the need to become armed.
Perhaps, if I am correct, there is a way forward. Those who hide behind the 2nd, appear to have little but wind to drive their cause. As William remarked a day or so ago" a gale at our back".
Given the political will and the support of the majority, the only impediment would appear to be the constitutional difficulties of the 2nd. Although the Supreme Court is allegedly apolitical, it is obvious that as the Justices are appointed by the President (with congressional vetting) there would be an expectation of residual goodwill towards the party which appointed them.
To clear up any misconceptions here, I repeat that my own political leanings are well to the right of centre. However, unlike some, I can see both sides and a bad law remains bad, no matter which party conceived and gave birth to it.
Cheers from Aussie
Kingston,
DeleteGenerally speaking, the Republican Party is more pro-NRA than the Democratic Party, although it's member ship includes politicians and constituents from both side.
I can't speak for the majority of Americans as far as the ownership or need for firearms is concerned. I did say that if we were in a different location or set of circumstances, our view MIGHT change; I don't know.
I hope that the Supremes don't judge with some intent or desire for allegiance to the ideology of the party that selected and/or approved them. 'Residual goodwill' seems to imply an expectation a payment for the appointment; potentially somewhat nefarious overtones, yes?
I would not minimize the importance of what you refer to as constitutional difficulties of our second amendment.
With all of that, I DO think some part of the desire of President and his party is to use this utter tragedy to weaken the Republican party. Preponderant? Maybe not. But then, I think he's an arrogant, narcissistic creep, who is mostly about him. Just like my impressions of Bill Clinton (and bolstered by what I've about him).
Jean
Don't you find it interesting that other countries where violent video games, movies, music and TV shows are just as available as here don't have near the degree of gun violence as we? Why is that?
ReplyDeleteDon't you find it interesting that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates if violence?
DeleteWhy is that? .... cause they don't have guns of coarse... but that doesn't mean that they don't have violent crime statistics higher than the US. By the way if video games aren't effective in setting a mindset calculated violence, why does the US Army use them as training aids and why has the Dept of the Army had to narrow its units funding policy to only 'approved' games as it is costing too much. If individual units want to buy these games in the future they will have to fund them at the unit level.
ReplyDeleteYes Max, the movies and music is a reflection of a segment of society... a very small segment but when you expand that hate to everyone else with movies and music as a vehicle, you expand the problem. Case in point is that you never saw the gangland hip-hop style of racial expression here in the UK until they were exposed to it from Hollywood. Most gun crime is committed by the very people who live the life they sing about.....
I am sure you remember the many taboos that were broken by comedy programs like Rowen and Martins laugh in. For instance, they broke the mold for using swear words on tv... now it doesn't matter what is said on tv, on radio, in a restaurant or on the street.... were they merely a mirror of the broader publics desire to spew vulgar language or did they give permission to a bunch of shockjocks and unruly citizens to say and do as they please? Just because a few people live a certain way doesn't mean that they have the right to change society nor do a bunch of Hollywood liberals have the right to rip up a polite society in the NAME of free speech but with the only real motive of profit. Hollywood doesn't care what message it sends to society or what damage it does... just like any other corporate entity that you real against... its all about the money
"Hollywood doesn't care what message it sends to society or what damage it does... just like any other corporate entity that you real against... its all about the money"
DeleteMuch as I may rail against a corporate entity TS, one thing I never forget is that the entity is simply giving the customer what they want. MSNBC and Fox are content providers, they cater to an audience and are paid for dong so. I find it somewhat interesting that as we are having this discussion, both Sylvester Stallone and Arnold have movies out that from the trailer, look to be reviving the high body count movies of the 80's.
I can admit that most people are apt to project their view onto the world around them and then find examples to back it up. Be that as it may, I feel one undeniable trend that has occurred in this country throughout my life is that we have become more and more callous and crass toward each other and to life itself. I don't watch reality TV shows, but what little I have seen typically involved brutally petulant and spoiled human beings who have so much wealth, it almost seems like it is driving them mad. We have so much abundance in this country, yet so many people feel so miserable and feel so afraid what they have will be taken away. What exactly causes that? I honestly can't say. What I can say is that somewhere in there, I believe, is a link to our violence.