Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   Public health crisis: Guns   (newscientist.com) divider line 539
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

11206 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2003 at 4:12 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



539 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-07-14 06:02:47 AM  
"By your nutty logic it's ok for kids to take guns to school if they are being bullied by bigger kids. After all, they fear greatly for their safety and that gun is just to protect themselves and equalise their chances against the older children."

Wow you soooo get what I am saying. Someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night is JUST like getting bullied at school.

"Appropriate force, a concept you need to get familiar with."

Break into my house where my wife and child are and die!
,a concept thieves need to be familiar with.

I know you would make him cookies and milk, sorry I am not that nice I guess.
 
2003-07-14 06:22:30 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog is a perfect example of why one whacko with a funny mustache was able to take over that entire continent.
 
2003-07-14 06:44:25 AM  
Tad3tte - ... and in this country you'd go to jail for murder for doing so.[for shooting a home intruder]

It's nice to know that in Australia, it's illegal to defend yourself and your family. How's it feel to be a victim-in-waiting?

Note to self: If I ever decide to go on a crime spree, go to Australia. They're unarmed sheep there.

As for the poster gladly proclaiming Europe to be a gun-free paradise, they don't explain how I keep hearing on the news about the occasional murderous rampage in Europe. Or how the gun-free Utopia of the UK has become a cesspool of crime lately?

Liberals like being the perpetual victims. They're no other explanation. And they want us to be just like them.

El_Chupacabra! - Have your stupid killing toys, but MAKE the manufacturers put safety devices in. Make guns expensive. fark the industry, make govt. legislation FORCE them to do it.

Yup. THAT'S the answer. Make sure that only the rich and powerful can afford firearms. The Little People don't need them!

/duh
 
2003-07-14 06:46:42 AM  
FUTWT, equating agreement with gun-control to passively being taken over by a tyrant is possibly the silliest application of Godwins Law ever.

Gun control wasn't present in most of those european countries before WWII, so isn't that whole argument one whopping big fallacy?

I've had weapons training and if I had to defend myself and my country I'd be more than capable of it. From the people in gun control countries posting on Fark, do we take anything lying down? *grins*

Thinking guns would suffice as a means to evade or overthrow an out of control government is probably stupid. If you haven't got RPGs and mines in every house, you'd be toast, even then you'd only be able to hold out for so long.

The people of Iraq, most heavily armed and with a culture of guns as part of society, didn't stand a chance against the superior equipment of the USA.
 
2003-07-14 07:16:42 AM  
Tadette: Not really. I was responding mostly to his astonishingly condescending last sentence. The implication being that those who are willing to fight for the right to defend themselves are somehow more apathetic than those willing to fork over control to some higher authority.
Yes indeed gun control was not present in most european nations before WW2, however, Hitler instituted strict gun control measures in Germany prior to the invasion of Poland. These measures effectively disarmed his biggest critics, who would have been the first to lead any sort of resistance movement against the Reich. And of course after Germany moved into France, Belgium, Denmark, et al, they intituted the same firearms confiscation policies to try and eliminate resistance. This is also why many people are so upset about requiring registration - the first thing the Nazis did was pull up those firearms registration lists so they could find out who owned what, and pay them a visit...
/very geeky history geek

As for Iraq, quite a lot of the citizenry was happy to see Saddam go, although they may not be that happy with the US's motivations or current way of doing things. And look at the 30+ American and British soldiers who have been shot to death since the war was declared "over" by Bush? I'm certainly NOT happy that those men are dead, but it does seem to prove my point :oP
Also I dunno about RPGs, but nearly anyone can make mines and other such nasty devices out of things you can buy at the local hardware store. Again, particularly in the wake of the Unabomber type nastiness we've been seeing in recent decades, I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's there.

From the people in gun control countries posting on Fark, do we take anything lying down? *grins*

No... No, I don't suppose you do. Hehe
Oh, and Godwin's law is vastly overrated :oP
 
2003-07-14 07:20:32 AM  
One more thing (though this really isn't related to my last post) the idea that Europe is some sort of magical gun-free utopia is poppycock. I'd be willing to bet that just as many criminals on that continent own guns as those here. It's just that in Europe you have different motivations for crime and thus different MOs. For instance, drug laws tend to be more lax in Europe overall. Here in the US, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of firearms violence is related to the so called "drug war" we've been fruitlessly waging for the last 20-odd years...
 
2003-07-14 07:35:11 AM  
Nostrafarkus

Hey, it worked in Australia didn't it? Oh rats, that's right, gun related crime there skyrocketed 400% after the great Aussie gun grab.

Ding ding ding! Someone's been reading too much NRA "promotional" material. You'd get better value out of that stuff (and look less stupid) using it for toilet paper.

Dealing AGAIN with the "Australia" argument - the above statement is crap. Most handguns and semiautomatics have been illegal in Australia for decades. Rifles were restricted in 1996 and handed back in under a buyback scheme.

If you compare the actual, government published stats for the number of gun deaths in 1996 (the year of rifles being removed) at 311 with the firearm deaths today at 306 (see table below), then take into account the increase in population and urban concentrations in that time, you see how inane the statement that gun control doesn't work really is.

To show a broader timeline between 1993 and 2001:

The number of victims of murder has increased slightly from 296 to 306, as a rate per 100,000 population there has been a slight decrease from 1.7 to 1.6 victims. There has been an 11% decrease in murders where a weapon was used over this period, while during the same period there has been a 19% increase in attempted murders where a weapon was used. While the proportion of robberies where a weapon was used in 1993 and 2001 was similar (42%), the use of firearms has declined both in actual numbers (from 1,983 down to 1,686) and as a proportion of all robberies (from 16% to 6%).

11.9 VICTIMS OF REPORTED CRIME(a), By Use of Weapon in Commission of Offence
_________________________________________________________
Offence.......... Gun .. Other . Total . No ..... Total
category......... Used . Weapon. Weapon. Weapon . Num.
................. % .... Used %. Used %. Used % . Victims
_________________________________________________________
Homicide - 2001
_______________________________________________________
Murder .......................................... 306
Attempted murder................................. 458

_______________________________________________________
Homicide - 2000
_______________________________________________________
Murder........... 19.5 .. 38.4 .. 59.3 .. 40.7 .. 302
Attempted murder. 30.7 .. 52.2 .. 83.1 .. 16.9 .. 391

_______________________________________________________
Homicide - 1999
_______________________________________________________
Murder........... 17.8 .. 43.9 .. 63.7 .. 36.4 .. 342
Attempted murder. 31.6 .. 47.8 .. 79.3 .. 20.7 .. 358

_______________________________________________________
Homicide - 1996
_______________________________________________________
Murder........... 31.5 .......................... 311
Attempted murder. 30.2 .......................... 331

_________________________________________________________

Source: Recorded Crime, Australia 1999 & 2001 (4510.0)
 
2003-07-14 07:37:09 AM  
oh great - a non-proportional font.

*shrugs* cut and paste it into notepad if you want to fight about it. The figures are all there.
 
2003-07-14 07:40:45 AM  
I also like the way the number of attempted murders doesn't seem to change much, but the ones that succeed are fewer. Proves the point that an angry person + an available gun = someone dead, where as angry people without guns tends to result in far fewer deaths (if not attempts at killing).
 
2003-07-14 07:52:32 AM  

_________________________________________________________
Offence.......... Gun .. Other . Total . No ..... Total
category......... Used . Weapon. Weapon. Weapon . Num.
................. % .... Used %. Used %. Used % . Victims
_________________________________________________________
Homicide - 2001
_______________________________________________________
Murder .......................................... 306
Attempted murder................................. 458

_______________________________________________________
Homicide - 2000
_______________________________________________________
Murder........... 19.5 .. 38.4 .. 59.3 .. 40.7 .. 302
Attempted murder. 30.7 .. 52.2 .. 83.1 .. 16.9 .. 391

_______________________________________________________
Homicide - 1999
_______________________________________________________
Murder........... 17.8 .. 43.9 .. 63.7 .. 36.4 .. 342
Attempted murder. 31.6 .. 47.8 .. 79.3 .. 20.7 .. 358

_______________________________________________________
Homicide - 1996
_______________________________________________________
Murder........... 31.5 .......................... 311
Attempted murder. 30.2 .......................... 331

_________________________________________________________


Why did I bother doing this again ?
 
2003-07-14 08:08:19 AM  
*needs sleep but can't resist throwing another troll out before naptime*
The interesting/spiffy/odd thing about Australia is it's possibly the only place on earth where you'll have any success at all preventing weapons from being smuggled in in massive quantities. Just about everywhere else in the world, criminals see a firearms ban as a very minor inconvenience in terms of actually obtaining a gun; it means the street price of that lifted Glock is 10% higher :oP
 
2003-07-14 08:12:01 AM  
Tad3tte: It does look a LOT better that way. I admire a fellow perfectionist.

/me, a perfectionist? Hahahhaa

Oh shiat, I spelled that wrong!
 
2003-07-14 08:13:59 AM  
Spelled shiat wrong too. shiat!
 
2003-07-14 08:14:29 AM  
FarkingUpTheWrongTree

True, 'cause in any direction you cast your eye we're surrounded by hundreds of kms of farking ocean ;)

I think there was a North Korean ship loaded with illegal guns seized here a few months ago. Amusing in a way, along with drugs to you guys and missiles to the middle east they're trying to run guns into this country. You got to hand it to them for trying *lol*.

'night, see you on a flamethread sometime soon ;)
 
2003-07-14 10:58:51 AM  
Tad3tte uh either I can't read correctly or your numbers show that people without weapons are deadlier than with guns...
 
2003-07-14 11:05:28 AM  
This was a fun read. I'm off to the range.
 
2003-07-14 11:46:39 AM  
What a load of shiat.

Some amazingly ill-informed uses of statistics, half reading of material and general twisting of facts to support preconcieved notions.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. If you've got a gun handy...
 
2003-07-14 11:58:18 AM  
Zaphod42 wrote:

The second amendment does not give anyone the right to own a handguns or assult rifles.

You are entirely correct. The Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights. The BoR starts with the premise that we as Americans ALREADY POSSESS these rights and affirms the government has no power to REMOVE said rights.
 
2003-07-14 12:09:40 PM  
I haven't read the complete thread, but...

In Minnesota there has been a recent release of 90,000 Conceal & Carry permits.

I'm not particularly in favor of this, I won't be getting one; but If you want to curb crime by carrying a gun/protect yourself---

What is the point of concealing your gun? Let those violent criminals know you're packing AND that there is a 95% chance that you are a better shot that they are!

That, and to calm my worries of the wrong people slipping throught the cracks and getting a permit. They would be quickly stripped of their permits and firearm.


What would happen if all these people carried guns in plain visibility??

Sooner or later, the general public would lump people carrying a gun into same group with those who "OVERCOMPENSATE" by driving a Porsche, Ferrari or Hummer, because its the same species of macho-in-their-own-mind, suburban-cowboy prick
 
2003-07-14 12:43:40 PM  
Theres too many stupid people in America to allow anybody a gun. Make it harder to get a permit for one and then most people won't have a problem with it. But as it stands now, almost anybody can get one, they just have to wait 10 days.
 
2003-07-14 12:52:03 PM  
/continuing

But I have nooooo problem with women carrying guns, because they are not dumb enough to screw things up when carrying.

mixing testosterone and guns is like mixing land mines and tap dancers--something messy will happen.
 
2003-07-14 01:14:50 PM  
2003-07-13 06:29:22 PM KazamaSmokers
I am sick to death of the redneck gun fags.

Glad to see the left are such moral tolerant people. Some one mentioned the right wing racists earlier? Whats a good name for this fellow?
-----------
I'm not left wing. In fact, I'm a gun owner and a crack shot... and I firmly believe most people who own guns shouldn't have them.. and if you own more guns than you have windows in your house... you're a gun fag.
 
2003-07-14 01:38:32 PM  
Hey KazamaSmokers, do you kiss your mom with that mouth? You racist bigot.
 
2003-07-14 02:52:24 PM  
I work in the outdoor/gun related industry. The fact of the matter is, the house bill doesn't protect the gun industry from lawsuits pertaining to faulty guns, etc. They are still held responsible for any injuries or deaths that arise from the legal, proper use of a faulty gun.

What the bill stops are "junk" lawsuits that cities/states/individuals are filing in hopes of getting a big settlement or making guns illegal. The bill would stop lawsuits against gun makers for the illegal use and injuries inflicted on people.

If that isn't fair, I don't know what it. I don't see anyone suing Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Texaco, Shell or any other industry for the deaths caused by drunk drivers. Why? Because it's not the car that killed anyone, it's the dumb drunk idiot behind the wheel. Should we all give our cars up because a small percentage of people drink and drive and inflict harm upon others?

No...and law-abiding citizens shouldn't have their guns made illegal or have the manufacturer's sued because a small percentage of people use a gun as a tool to commit crimes.
 
2003-07-14 03:06:20 PM  
Tad3tte:

Anyone who breaks into my house, 16 or 75 years of age deserves to die. They should expect it.

Disagree? Read this first.
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=57256

Michael Busa, the 5-year old Cornelius boy who was severely beaten and left for dead during a home invasion robbery last month continues to recover slowly.

"Whether he used the hockey stick first, and then cut his throat with the scissors, or if he used the scissors first, and then used the hockey stick, it's beyond thinking, imagining," -Michael's Grandmother.

Here is the guy accused of the crime, he's 17.
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=57058

I really can't understand your point of view here. Do you seriously think that there is nothing to fear from someone, regardless of their age, breaking into your home?

Here's another one.
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=58761

I think a major difference between the US and Australia is that the US fought, and beat the British to gain our independance and freedom. We wrote our own Constitution with no help from the British. Austrailia begged and pleaded for their independance from Britan.
Read about it here
 
2003-07-14 03:13:33 PM  
AdrienVeidt
What about knives? Baseball bats? Cars? They all provide a means to kill people... removing guns will NOT remove the threat of being attacked or killed. It will remove the threat of honest citizens killing you on accident... because there will be people who have guns to use in crime.

Stew
So if you made this head crushing device, and someone bought it, captured people walking down the street, and proceeded to place them in the machine, it is the machine's fault that they are dead?

KazamaSmokers
To me, a "gun fag" would be an NRA person with 50 guns, half that don't work, and the other half that are used to kill possums. However, I don't think a person who owns a number of guns and uses each gun on a different animal while hunting is a gun fag.
And I only own one gun, for deer hunting. For elk hunting, I borrow a gun, same with duck hunting.
 
2003-07-14 03:17:41 PM  
It will remove the threat of honest citizens killing you with a gun on accident... sorry.
 
2003-07-14 04:18:29 PM  
I just want to say that I have no opinion on this, and anyone who disagrees with me is a dummy.
 
2003-07-14 04:51:07 PM  
cenotaph
The Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights. The BoR starts with the premise that we as Americans ALREADY POSSESS these rights and affirms the government has no power to REMOVE said rights.


Which is exactly my point. You may own a muzzle loading musket, not a revolver, not a glock, not an uzi, and not an ak47.

If you decide to take the huge and irrational leap and assume it is true that the 2nd amendment says the government can't take any weapons away from you, then the amendment needs to be amended. The constitution is a living breathing document. It is long overdue for a rewrite in this respect.

The government will not take away your shotguns and non-automatic rifles. However, NOBODY needs a handgun, much less an assault rifle.
 
2003-07-14 05:23:55 PM  
"Rights" are a human invention. Though the constitution claims only to recognize rights and not grant them, it does in fact grant them by defining them under the law.
 
2003-07-14 05:32:35 PM  
Zaphod42 - You're absolutely right. When the Founding Father's wrote the Bill Of Rights, they couldn't have even begun to guess about such weapons like Uzi's, Glocks, or AK-47's.

Following that logic, I'm sure the Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined Radio, TV, CD-Players, or the Internet. As such, the 1st Admendment shouldn't protect them, either.

The constitution is a living breathing document. It is long overdue for a rewrite in this respect.

I cringe every time I hear this "living document" crap. Why can't liberals accept what the Bill Of Rights actually say?

The government will not take away your shotguns and non-automatic rifles.

Really? How can you guarantee this?

However, NOBODY needs a handgun

It's nice to know that you know what I do and do not need. I must have been horribly misguided to assume that when my wife defended herself from getting abducted with her legally-owned-and-carried handgun, she sure needed it that night.

much less an assault rifle.

Define "Assault Rifle". Oh, yeah, that's right. The definition is subject to revision at any notice... that must be an example of the entire "living, breathing document" thing.
 
2003-07-14 05:47:12 PM  
mixing testosterone and guns is like mixing land mines and tap dancers--something messy will happen.
*rofl* Thanks, Rage, I needed some tea out my nose today. Clears the sinuses.

Seriously, I agree that women should be the ones packin'. I know for instance that there are places I feel perfectly safe as a tall, 270 pound male that I know I'd want to vacate immediately as a short 140 pound woman. And statistics suggest that women are more likely to be saved from injury by use of a gun in self defense as compared to men (as for why that is, I'm sure we could trade theories all day).
 
2003-07-14 06:51:27 PM  
Chris Rock says there's no need for gun control, just make bullets cost five thousand dollars apiece. There sure wouldn't be any more innocent bystanders!
 
2003-07-14 07:26:46 PM  
Zaphod42 -- if the gov. won't take away shotguns and rifles why will they take away handguns and assault guns? Because a person hunts with them? handgun hunting is very popular and competitive shooting is even more popular...and the number of people participating in these events far outnumber the people using them for crime. who gets to dictate what's good for everyone else? you say I have to give up my handgun and assault rifle, I say you have to give up your television and internet because you can't be trusted to watch violent images and porn without becoming aroused and agitated to the point of poliferating violence upon society with the shotgun and rifle that the gov. won't take away.

Webgrunt -- as for Chris Rock's idea of upping the cost of ammo, anti-gunners in California just tried to put a 5-cent tax on each piece of ammunition sold...that's each bullet in a box. It failed, as it should have; but it wouldn't do anything to stop crime anyway, does Chris Rock actually thing that the people perpetuating the majority of crimes BUY the $600 handgun or $2,000 assault rifle they use to shoot up the neighborhood? You'd just supplant the importance of the ammo for the gun ... which would make ammo more valuable, which would lead to more crime taking place in order to obtain the ammo, or enough cash to buy the ammo.
 
2003-07-14 08:21:46 PM  
Heh, Dissy lives in the city that I used as an example in one of my previous posts.

This means, of course, that she should email me immediately to compare notes. I'm even moving there in 2 weeks (A whole 8 mile move, hooray).
 
2003-07-14 08:55:42 PM  
Hyde

I'm sorry, i believe in 'to each his own' but handgun hunting? that's even more stupid than nascar.

All kidding aside. just because there are a group of people who enjoy using concealable weapons for hunting doesn't mean they should be able to own them.

TV's don't kill people, people with guns kill people, people without guns kill people a whole lot slower - the guns certainly help.

Try again.
 
2003-07-14 09:07:24 PM  
guns are bad mmmkay? what we need is the protector devices in each badgun so that when you shoot the badguys they don't get hurt but instead it TICKLES THEM!!!!! that would be soooo cool and would not hurt anyone and only cops can have guns and army men i mean people becuase they are the good people and they can protect everyone and then badguys cant get the guns becuase only the cops can get them and then they can make sure the drugs are gone too becuase only politicians and stars can legally have them and also guns to they can shoot all the bad people and people that say bad things about them and then all would be good in the world becuase only cops and army people and stars can have the drugs and guns but becuase they are good people we can trust them and not worry about it they can also be the judges to decide in courts too and no one would ever be wrongly convicted becuase they are good people and not corrupt like bad evilman peoples.
guns are bad mmmkay?
 
2003-07-14 10:46:31 PM  
Zaphod42:

Let's stop discussing ideologies and silly postulates here and just break it down. Answer for me these questions:

Do you believe that curtailing/removing a law-abiding citizen's right to own/carry a firearm results in lower violent crime rates, and a safer populace?

Do you believe that a disarmed society is in no greater danger of tyranny and mass murder than one that has an armed citizenry?
 
2003-07-17 12:43:33 PM  
KazamaSmokers
To me, a "gun fag" would be an NRA person with 50 guns, half that don't work, and the other half that are used to kill possums. However, I don't think a person who owns a number of guns and uses each gun on a different animal while hunting is a gun fag.
And I only own one gun, for deer hunting. For elk hunting, I borrow a gun, same with duck hunting.
-----------
You're absolutely right. If you're a gun collector and you have a thing for, say, nice Harrington Richardson pistols or (my favorite) the old Colt 10mm Delta Elite... I have no problem with you.

It's the freaks who own forty guns - almost all of them cheap Asian crap - and think it's some sort of paranoid political statement who are the gun fags.

And BTW - how is that a racist statement?

"Gun fag" is a term cops invented. They HATE dealing with those types.
 
Displayed 39 of 539 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report