Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Showing Original Post only (View all)Xpost: Austrailian gun control... [View all]
Yes, Virginia, we CAN do something about gun violence.
Australia Proved Gun Control Reduces Mass Shootings, Homicides, Suicides
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/26/gun-control-mass-shootings_n_8043364.html
Every time this (a mass shooting) happens in America, the two sides of the gun control debate resume arguing. Inevitably, the powerful gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), largely wins with its argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
But earlier this week, a study by the American Sociological Association came out debunking the NRA's contention. It reported that the U.S. which has nearly half the world's civilian-owned guns is also home to 31 per cent of the world's mass shootings despite making up only five per cent of the world's population.
"That is not a coincidence," wrote study author Adam Lankford. "My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nations civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters.
====
In the decade after the (Australian) gun control law was passed, gun homicides fell by 59 per cent and firearm-related suicides fell by 65 per cent. There was no related increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides.
Australia Proved Gun Control Reduces Mass Shootings, Homicides, Suicides
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/26/gun-control-mass-shootings_n_8043364.html
Every time this (a mass shooting) happens in America, the two sides of the gun control debate resume arguing. Inevitably, the powerful gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), largely wins with its argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
But earlier this week, a study by the American Sociological Association came out debunking the NRA's contention. It reported that the U.S. which has nearly half the world's civilian-owned guns is also home to 31 per cent of the world's mass shootings despite making up only five per cent of the world's population.
"That is not a coincidence," wrote study author Adam Lankford. "My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nations civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters.
====
In the decade after the (Australian) gun control law was passed, gun homicides fell by 59 per cent and firearm-related suicides fell by 65 per cent. There was no related increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides.
Comment by the OP over there on that 'piece':
Gunners will say that the suicide rate has gone up using other methods. They're wrong and there's no other way to put it. They are wrong.
Violent crime has not gone up either.
There is no excuse to not emulate Australia. They still have guns, they still protect themselves in the Out Back, they still hunt, they still compete in marksmanship and they still collect antiques.
They just don't die at the rate Americans do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629657
Violent crime has not gone up either.
There is no excuse to not emulate Australia. They still have guns, they still protect themselves in the Out Back, they still hunt, they still compete in marksmanship and they still collect antiques.
They just don't die at the rate Americans do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629657
This seems like a good time to point out that Australia engaged in gun confiscation.
I think the confiscationists do not understand, that whether government payed for the firearms they confiscated or not, that they indeed compelled otherwise law abiding people to give up guns against their will.
Playing games calling it a buyback ignores the truth of the matter.
What say you all?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
125 replies, 21157 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
it was undemocratic in that he didn't put the question to a formal referendum.
SwissTony
Sep 2015
#26
FFS, do you really claim that knife and gun are the same in a mass murder? Which would you....
Logical
Sep 2015
#31
Are you saying all confrontations favor or are equal to the capabilities of the victim?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#56
"It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#58
No, but I think the fear of them should be dealt with in the appropriate way
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#59
It's definitely irrational if you think criminals don't strike in public.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#62
What is reasonable about demanding people not defend themselves outside their homes?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#66
"If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms..."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#79
It's amusing that you can fabricate so many things about what freedom is or isn't and yet
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#96
It only makes a difference if you care about what kind of society you want to live in
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#72
Anyone living in the country should have equal rights in terms of self defense
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#106
Do you know how many guns have been confiscated from the total in the country?
Eleanors38
Sep 2015
#12
The pro-gun regulars also don't defend those who work against Democrats seeking reelection...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#25
This is the same person that finds it acceptable to attack Dems seeking reelection:
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#38
So if some future president abolished voting but paid each voter $475 you'd be okay with that.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#47
"bring back to a more satisfactory state" Back to something that did not exist previously...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#45
If the owners had no choice and the government did not own the property then it was confiscation.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#51
"Icon and I simply know how to read a dictionary..." No doubt James can also read quite well
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#53