Limiting Gun Ownership to Registered Gun Clubs

[gunnut]

gunnut,

australia, not austria. a rather bigger 23 million.

Damn it!!! I was thinking about my Austria trip and saw "Austria" in place of "Australia."

Those 2 countries really should change their names so old folks don't get confused.

Australia has a population density less than 3% of Austria, and 8% of US, still not that comparable.

and in urban areas like sydney, australia's population density is over 3x that of LA...and just as ethnically diverse, to boot.

According to wiki, Sydney has a population density of 380/km2, where as Los Angeles has a population of 3176/km2.

there's very little data when comparing US states to back up this assertion.

There's definitely data showing those cities with the most stringent gun laws have the highest crime rates. There's also data showing that the same city (or state...forgot) experienced a drop in crime rate faster than national trend after relaxing concealed carry law.

this is true. in fact, the number of mass shootings has increased with the increasing availability of firearms.

Are there more guns per capita now or in the 1950s? I bet more in the 1950s. Why are there more mass shootings now? Or do we actually have more mass shootings now compared to 1950s? I don't know. It feels like it because we have dozens of 24/7 news channels plus the internet and millions of cameras rolling at the same time. Something gets captured on video and it's played over and over and over until people are sick of it.

this is not true. some, but by no means all (or even a majority!) happen in gun free zones. for the most part, data points out that mass shootings tend to occur in places where gunmen have some emotional connection.

If emotional connection is strong, then the shooting would occur regardless. Usually those shooters have specific targets in mind, like rival, ex, boss, coworker...etc. If so, then the shootings usually don't last longer than after the primary target is eliminated. Often the shooter commits suicide soon after.

However, those shootings without "strong emotional connections" tend to last longer. In these cases, the shooter would look for vulnerable targets, like "gun free zones" were lots of people without the ability to retaliate congregate. Sandy Hook, Virgina Tech, Fort Hood, Columbine, all are gun free zones, and the shooters may or may not have strong attachment to.

Remember, we're talking about "mass shootings." The very definition means that the shooter intends to do as much damage for as long as possible. The best way to do that is to attack "gun free zones." Why? Even crazy people are rational. They won't go after police stations or a shooting range because...people have guns and know how to use them.

i would want it to be rather more stringent with that, seeing as how so many people easily get around alcohol restrictions. of course the devil is in the details.

Sure, as harsh as penalties for drunk driving are, people still do that. In fact, someone drove a car into opposite traffic on the freeway here and killed a family of 6. She wasn't too badly injured. Should we ban alcohol?

partly because full auto weapons are now for the most part insanely expensive. it was a bout of mass murders in the 1920s that led to the gun regulations against automatic weapons.

I must make a retraction/correction here.

A very wise man pointed out to me that there was a single case of a legally registered full auto weapon being used in a crime. Ironically, the owner was a cop.

the crux of this is simply rate of fire. it becomes extremely difficult to commit mass murder once the rate of fire falls off. in real life we see this when mass murderers tend to get stopped when they need to change/refill mags, run out of ammo, or when the police are closing in (suicide). seeing as how i think it will be extremely difficult to turn back time in this regards, i'd say a fair way of resolving the issue would be, very simply, to regulate ammunition the way we regulate cigarettes. if .22LR costed as much or more than, say, a 50 cal ammo...over the long-term, it'd be rather more difficult to pull off a mass murder. now that i think about it, a similar tax like the one we use for automatic weapons, only graded accordingly to rate of fire, would also reduce the number of armed crazies. that'd work better, i'd think, than any dumb magazine/"pistol grip" regulation.

The best way to deter crime, especially mass shooting, is to make sure people know their targets might be able to fight back.

Watch this:



@ProjectVeritas_ Journalists, Politicians Refuse to Post Lawn Sign saying "HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE" - YouTube

[Tamara]

...........
Watch this:



@ProjectVeritas_ Journalists, Politicians Refuse to Post Lawn Sign saying "HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE" - YouTube

Interesting video.......are there really people out there who are not afraid to be a slaughtered sheep? Yes, unfortunately, I am sure there are.

As far as "Gee, wouldn't it be great if no one had guns!"?........................................... want to see how fast I can put "you" in the hospital not using a gun?

Now, without going into the inventory of the various ways of doing harm without a gun, long story short and all that, there is the other point to that......................

.................................................. ......want to see how fast "you" can stop "me" with a gun?

[kato]

According to wiki, Sydney has a population density of 380/km2, where as Los Angeles has a population of 3176/km2.

That would be because australian urban governmental units are the size of small states on other continents and include fucktons of (where applicable) forests, hills, deserts etc.

[Bigfella]

That would be because australian urban governmental units are the size of small states on other continents and include fucktons of (where applicable) forests, hills, deserts etc.

Correct. When people speak of an Australian city they are talking of the entire suburban area - not just the equivalent of the 'city' in the US. We al;so include the 'county' areas. There are parts of 'Melbourne' that are forest & farmland. Same for 'Sydney'. A more useful comparison of LA to Sydney would be Greater LA to Sydney. That gives us a population density of approx. 372 per km (Sydney) to 202 per km (LA).

Every time I see some American raise the 'population density' argument to explain murder rates I near wet myself with laughter. It is beyond desperate. Comparing national population densities and tying them to crime is as close to a definition of idiocy as I can find - amazingly enough nations don't allot an equal plot of land to every citizen & have them stand in the middle. :slap:

The argument tends to get used against Australians & Canadians but is strangely absent when talking to Europeans, who live in nations & cities that are usually much more dense that the US or its cities, yet somehow manage murder rates a fraction of the US (at this point they usually revert to race or culture explanations). Of course, no matter how many times you point out how crap these arguments are and how unsupported they are by fact they will keep getting trotted out. Often by the same people. The nature of faith is universal. You can never be proven wrong.

To point out the absurdity of this, Greater London has a population of 8 million, a population density of 5200 sq km, more of 'those people' than Detroit & a murder rate that is not only one quarter of the US, but is less than the whole of Australia with its super low population density . In 2012 Greater London had 89 murders at 1 per 100,000. Yes, that was 89 murders for a city with 8 million people, 10% of whom are.....well...you know....

[bonehead]

Correct. When people speak of an Australian city they are talking of the entire suburban area - not just the equivalent of the 'city' in the US. We al;so include the 'county' areas. There are parts of 'Melbourne' that are forest & farmland. Same for 'Sydney'. A more useful comparison of LA to Sydney would be Greater LA to Sydney. That gives us a population density of approx. 372 per km (Sydney) to 202 per km (LA).

Every time I see some American raise the 'population density' argument to explain murder rates I near wet myself with laughter. It is beyond desperate. Comparing national population densities and tying them to crime is as close to a definition of idiocy as I can find - amazingly enough nations don't allot an equal plot of land to every citizen & have them stand in the middle. :slap:

The argument tends to get used against Australians & Canadians but is strangely absent when talking to Europeans, who live in nations & cities that are usually much more dense that the US or its cities, yet somehow manage murder rates a fraction of the US (at this point they usually revert to race or culture explanations). Of course, no matter how many times you point out how crap these arguments are and how unsupported they are by fact they will keep getting trotted out. Often by the same people. The nature of faith is universal. You can never be proven wrong.

To point out the absurdity of this, Greater London has a population of 8 million, a population density of 5200 sq km, more of 'those people' than Detroit & a murder rate that is not only one quarter of the US, but is less than the whole of Australia with its super low population density . In 2012 Greater London had 89 murders at 1 per 100,000. Yes, that was 89 murders for a city with 8 million people, 10% of whom are.....well...you know....

Of course you wet yourself. But its is not laughter. The FBI…….the guys that spend all their waking hours studying crime know that population density is a factor. Just keep in mind that they are talking about the United States…..not any other nation. You know, comparing apples to apples. Comparing the U.S. to other countries is usually laughably moronic as there is a host of variables unique to some countries but not others. Well guess what the FBI puts first on the list.





Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors which are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:

Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors. Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional,
and probational).
Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
The Uniform Crime Reports give a nationwide view of crime based on statistics contributed by local and
state law enforcement agencies.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...1997/toc97.pdf

[Bigfella]

Of course you wet yourself. But its is not laughter. The FBI…….the guys that spend all their waking hours studying crime know that population density is a factor. Just keep in mind that they are talking about the United States…..not any other nation. You know, comparing apples to apples. Comparing the U.S. to other countries is usually laughably moronic as there is a host of variables unique to some countries but not others. Well guess what the FBI puts first on the list.

Just for those who don't reed too gud, I was responding to an argument that contends that the US has higher murder rates because it has a higher population density. Trying to argue that I was wrong because based on something I didn't say puts you right back in the 'idiot' box with the people who try that particular argument. By all means point to the part of my argument where I say that population density is not relevant at all. I didn't. Didn't even imply it. Either you knew that & just don't care, or you didn't understand what I wrote. At this point I'm about 50/50 on which.

The reasons why you want to avoid comparing nations to each other are transparently clear and it isn't out of some profound concern for the accuracy of the data. Pretending it is would indeed be 'laughably moronic'. We get it.

You've already made it clear that you will lock up innocent people, double down on policies that have devastated America's inner cities & write off anyone who ever has a suicidal thought in order to keep your precious firearms. Your unwillingness to inform yourself even the tiniest bit before spouting off about suicide pretty much sums up your approach here (I love the 'first on the FBI list is significant' bit. ooh, ooh, look at the shiny object). It isn't about quality data or the validity of comparisons or having a shred of human compassion, it is about you getting what you want.

[Monash]

If we were discussing backyard drownings then the number of pools per head of population would be a significant factor in the argument. Not the only factor but a significant one. If we were discussing automobile deaths then the number of vehicles per kilometer of road i.e. traffic density would be issue. (Again not the only one but still a factor in the equation.) Discuss firearm deaths with many Americans on forums such as this and the number off firearms per head of population is apparently irrelevant. Go figure.

[Doktor]

If we were discussing backyard drownings then the number of pools per head of population would be a significant factor in the argument. Not the only factor but a significant one. If we were discussing automobile deaths then the number of vehicles per kilometer of road i.e. traffic density would be issue. (Again not the only one but still a factor in the equation.) Discuss firearm deaths with many Americans on forums such as this and the number off firearms per head of population is apparently irrelevant. Go figure.

Hmmm... could you compare the number of total fired shots vs murder by firearm rate?

That would be the equivalent of driven km per accident. I guess.

[Monash]

That would be more relevant for a discussion of the relevant accuracy of shooters per country surely. My point was that the the number of firearm deaths in the US (and every country) is a function of availability or if you prefer the 'density' of firearms in the general population (all other features including human stupidity being equal) i.e. in broad terms more guns per person = more deaths.

[Doktor]

That would be more relevant for a discussion of the relevant accuracy of shooters per country surely. My point was that the the number of firearm deaths in the US (and every country) is a function of availability or if you prefer the 'density' of firearms in the general population (all other features including human stupidity being equal) i.e. in broad terms more guns per person = more deaths.

Serbia has significant firearm density (if that's the term we gonna use), yet the murders are lacking.

In my view there are a lot of factors into consideration and removing the guns from the equation wont solve the issue.

[Triple C]

Show me the numbers of people who said they wanted to kill themselves but, "not today" because they couldn't get access to a gun.

I can tell you with certainty that I know exactly a case like this, and said person grew out of adolescent/young adult depression with a lot of therapy and happy pills. The parents of this person were often dismissive of the value of therapy and prescription drugs, until they realized that it actually helped their son get on with life.

If the people who want to suicide themselves are really interested in going painless there is a plethora of RX drugs for it. Heroin also comes to mind.

RX drugs are not particularly effective for committing suicide though; failed attempts are far more common than "successes", thank god. If the at-risk person lives with family attempts are often discovered by loved ones, and hospitals have well established regimes to remove toxins from cases like these. Fatal gunshot wounds, on the other hand, are fatal.

[Doktor]

I can tell you with certainty that I know exactly a case like this, and said person grew out of adolescent/young adult depression with a lot of therapy and happy pills. The parents of this person were often dismissive of the value of therapy and prescription drugs, until they realized that it actually helped their son get on with life.

RX drugs are not particularly effective for committing suicide though; failed attempts are far more common than "successes", thank god. If the at-risk person lives with family attempts are often discovered by loved ones, and hospitals have well established regimes to remove toxins from cases like these. Fatal gunshot wounds, on the other hand, are fatal.

They are just not committed enough. Real suiciders hang or jump from very high locations.

[Monash]

Serbia has significant firearm density (if that's the term we gonna use), yet the murders are lacking.

This was my point I acknowledged at the onset. It would be foolish to argue that removing firearms in their entirety from any society would reduce the murder rate by the number of deaths firearms caused every year. Obviously other means of committing murder (especially edged weapons) are ready substitutes, The only category of murders where you could claim the removal of firearms would have an significant impact would be the classic 'mass' murder or spree shooting using semi/automatic weapons and that is such a small % of deaths by firearms in the US and other countries as to be statistically insignificant (hard as that may be for the victims and their families.) For instance removing such weapons from the general population in Australia had little or no impact on the underlying murder rate but it did largely eliminate this one crime type.

(As a side note it would be interesting to research what impact if any the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the resulting civil wars had on the issue in Serbia. Was this significant or are there other underlying cultural factors at work?) More on US factors after I have marshalled my thoughts.

[Triple C]

They are just not committed enough. Real suiciders hang or jump from very high locations.

Yes, but the goal isn't stopping all suicides; it seems that people with low commitment can and do shoot themselves.

[Mihais]

Serbia has significant firearm density (if that's the term we gonna use), yet the murders are lacking.

In my view there are a lot of factors into consideration and removing the guns from the equation wont solve the issue.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romania has a very commie legislation with insignificant number of firearms,yet the murder rate is the highest in the area.SErbia has a bit more than half our own murder rate.Bulgaria has a similar murder rate more liberal gun legislation,but more active organized crime and .In Czech Republic and Slovakia they let you with automatic weapons(and not much more bureaucracy),yet the murder rate is much lower than our own.

But try to reason with imbeciles.