oppiejoe - 06 January 2013 01:04 AM

@ Peter:
It still happens in countries with “effective gun control laws”:
UK - The Cumbria England shootings in 2010 led to 13 fatalities and 11 injured when Derrick Bird shot and killed three people connected to himself, and 12 others in an apparently random shooting spree before turning the gun on himself. Bird held legal permits for three shotguns and a rifle. For 2010/11, police in England and Wales recorded 648 offences as homicide, of which 58 (9%) involved the use of firearms - a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. The number of homicides per year committed with firearms in England and Wales remained between 39 and 81 in the nine years to 2010/11, with an average of 58.3 per year. During the same time period, there were three fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales, and 149 non-fatal shootings, an average of 16.5 per year.

I find this stat significant as well: The United Kingdom has a total recorded crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people; the United States of America records approximately 80 (per 1000).

By crime type:
Violence against the person:
Homicide = 60In the year Apr 2010 to Mar 2011 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.

By weapon type:
Long-barrelled shotgun = 406
Sawn-off shotgun = 202
Handgun = 3,105
Rifle = 74
Imitation firearm = 1,610
Unidentified firearm = 957
Other firearm = 670
Air weapons = 4,203

Only those items proven to be “imitations” (which includes BB/soft air types) or air weapons are classed as such, otherwise they are placed by default in the main “live” categories, e.g. an imitation pistol not proven to be such would be counted as a live “handgun.” “Other firearm” includes CS gas (223 crimes), pepper spray (118), and stun guns (149).

Attempted murder/GBH with intent = 757
Other = 3,317 (1,212 of which involved imitations)
Robbery = 2,965
Burglary = 151
Criminal damage = 3,287 (2,916 of which involved air weapons)
Other = 690

I just know we don’t have the same problem with shootings here in Australia as it happens in the US. I mean we do have shootings but neither to the same magnitude nor frequency.

I know there are other ways to kill people but does that mean we should say “F*** it. Let them do it with guns”?

Or we might as well say “Hey little darlings. We know some of you are likely to go out and kill people with whatever means available to you anyway. Here’s a lovely little assault rifle for you to play with. Now be nice to little Karen now”.

I agree with you Peter.  Here’s my own message:

I feel the same about guns as I feel about vaccinations.  I don’t care if you own a gun or even cannons.  I also don’t care if you don’t get a flu shot either.  BUT, if you don’t vaccinate against the flu (or other contagions), or you need to carry a gun (or cannon) please stay away or quarantine yourself from the public in case you sneeze or accidentally discharge a bullet because a bug that only annoys you, or that accidental bullet might be deadly to me, mine or others.

“a bug that only annoys you”

you made my day

Peter - 06 January 2013 01:29 AM

I just know we don’t have the same problem with shootings here in Australia as it happens in the US. I mean we do have shootings but neither to the same magnitude nor frequency.

I know there are other ways to kill people but does that mean we should say “F*** it. Let them do it with guns”?

Or we might as well say “Hey little darlings. We know some of you are likely to go out and kill people with whatever means available to you anyway. Here’s a lovely little assault rifle for you to play with. Now be nice to little Karen now”.

Good lord Peter… you acknowledge that people are going to kill by any means possible but think WE PROMOTE the use of firearms for that purpose? I don’t think you do, but your argument is leading down that slippery slope.

The population in Australia is 22.6 million whereas the US had 311.5 million so it is entirely possible that there is going to be 13 times more reported crime and a proportionate number of crimes involving firearms in the US EXCEPT that Australia has NEVER been constitutionally allowed to own firearms, so this directly affects the availablity and such.

In Australia:

Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.

The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968. (also see attached graphic) 

BUT:
There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims. (emphasis added)

Source: Australian Institute of Criminology (no more recent statistic available).

You have already acknowledged that violent crime will be commited with whatever tool is available and the stats bear this out. Australia has historically had and continues to have a much lower homicide rate overall than the US and the crimes are not being comitted by firearms as often only because the firearms have never been as widely available as they are in the US. The lower number of people in Australia may have somethng to do with the lower crime stats (just a speculation)

or maybe you are just a much more polite society (pointing out the wiki history lesson: After discovery by Dutch explorers in 1606, Australia’s eastern half was claimed by Great Britain in 1770 and settled through penal transportation to the colony of New South Wales from 26 January 1788) 

I think there is a difference between gun control and banning guns completely, which seems to be the prevailing attitude among some of my other American friends.  Any time someone mentions gun control they freak out and express the opinion that no one is going to take their guns from them.  Realistically that will never happen as there are many lawful uses for firearms.  Control is usually about regulating the types of weapons available and who is allowed to have them. 

The AR-15 used in the school shooting is nothing more than a relabeled M-16.  It was designed as an assault weapon, not something for hunting or as a defensive weapon.  Yet it is readily available to anyone who can pass a background check.  Why?  As something that could be used in defence of ones house it’s not a good choice.  No long arm is.  It’s a .223 caliber weapon, not really the best choice for hunting either.  But in the case of the school shooting it was used exactly as it was designed, as an assault weapon.  So then what happens if you control that type of firearm?  Would not the possibility of another shooting be dimished?  And people would still have access to many other types of firearms to hunt, target shoot, etc.  You are not banning guns, you are controlling them.  However that is only one component of the issue.

And yes, criminals will always find a way to get hold of firearms, but I think you would find the majority, not all by any means, of high profile shootings are not committed by people with a criminal background.  They are committed by people with psychological issues, sociological misfits, people with anger management issues, etc.  So now we have another issue to deal with as part of gun control.  Who should have access to firearms?  The constitution does say that the populace has the right to bear arms.  But do you really want the guy next door who is known to be a bit of a loose cannon to have one when you know he gets viloent every time he has a few beer?  Or the guy who gets pissed at everyone who does something he doesn’t like and has a violent temper?  How about the mentally disurbed person down the road who utters threats on a regular basis?  Should they have ownership of a firearm? 

Gun control isn’t just about banning firearms, which as I said is impossible and unliikely, it’s about controlling access to firearms so that they are in the hands of people who are capable of handling them and making correct decisions on their storage, use, etc.    There is no total solution to this issue.  There will always be incidents from time to time that will shock us and have us wondering how and why they happened. 

Oppie’s observation that “Australia has historically had and continues to have a much lower homicide rate overall than the US and the crimes are not being comitted by firearms as often only because the firearms have never been as widely available as they are in the US. ” is a case in point for gun control.  Reduce the number of guns and the homicide rate due to firearms will go down.  Honestly I can’t see it happening though, the right of ownership is too ingrained in society.

Disclaimer:  Personally I own several rifles and shotguns.  I use them for hunting and target shooting.  I would not be happy if someone told me that I couldn’t own my guns so I can see the other side of the arguement too.  I just don’t think everyone needs a firearm for defence.

@opijoe
Can you give us statistics on whether or not the use of a firearm instead of other instruments in a crime would have no impact on the severity of injuries or on the number of deaths? I can’t believe attacking people with a knife would generally cause the same amount of injury and death compared to the same person being armed with an assault rifle.

Peter - 06 January 2013 09:53 PM

@opijoe discussion on the
Can you give us statistics on whether or not the use of a firearm instead of other instruments in a crime would have no impact on the severity of injuries or on the number of deaths? I can’t believe attacking people with a knife would generally cause the same amount of injury and death compared to the same person being armed with an assault rifle.

Good points and excellent discussion on your observations Gray - no disagreement from me.

Peter…. I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination… just exploring both sides of the discussion (with a heavier emphasis on the “support” aspect of firearm owners since I am one).

The stats I got from Wiki showed rampage killers using tools like knives, swords, machete, club, etc.

Frederick Moses McCallum, 19, Jan. 30, 1969 Buffalo Narrows, SK Canada killed 7 wounded 1 by melee weapon
Wirjo, 42:  April 15, 1987 Banjarsari,  Indonesia 20 killed 12 injured by melee weapon
Maksim Kiselev 27,  Feb. 26, 2008 Orton, Russia killed 6 wounded ? by melee weapon
Damian Karlik/Kirilik 38,  Oct. 17, 2009 Rishon LeZion, Israel killed 6 wounded 0 by melee weapon
Arsenio Formentera,  Jan. 28 1968 Palompon Philippines killed 17 wounded ? by melee weapon
Domingo Salazar 42, Oct. 11 1956 San Nicolas Philippines Killed 16 wounded 1 by melee weapon
David Malcolm Gray 33, Nov. 13/14 1990 Aramoana New Zealand Killed 13 wounded 3 by melee weapon
Bai Ningyang, 18, May 8, 2006 Shiguan China 12 killed and 5 wounded by melee weapon and arson
Wu Huanming, May 12, 2010 Linchang, China 9 Killed 11 wounded by melee weapon
Kiichiro Nakamura 36,  Sep. 7, 1954 Toyotsu, Japan 8 killed 3 wounded by melee weapon

...and these were just a few of the ones listed. There were quite a few more listing firearms since that particular tool is VERY efficient at killing and injuring.

I found a chart in the Bureau of Justice that shows a weapons comparison by type for 1976-2005 (U.S.)

and this breakdown:

Obviously this is reflects the U.S. proliferation and availability of firearms.


For a more worldwide report (I find it interesting that North America does NOT lead this list.):

And probably these stats are most responsive to your post:

As I said earlier: dead is dead regardless of the tool… and people will use whatever tool is available…

Telling stats in support of this theory:

source document: Linky (LARGE PDF)

I see the USA’s top sniper was killed by a fellow American soldier today on home turf. Over 100 confirmed kills of the ‘enemy’ only to be taken out by a countryman at a gun range. Would this have happened if guns were outlawed, nobody knows, but I expect the chances would have been greatly reduced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21320750

OR, if we just let Texas secede.  Of course we’d then have to really pay attention to the immigration restrictions they seem to jump up and down about.  (I’m not feeling spiteful)

Today I ate meat that I did not have to kill with a firearm and I live in the United States… nobody threatened to kill me with a gun today just like yesterday… ...my guns still haven’t killed anyone. /snark

“Guns don´t kill, people do”

1+1=get rid of the people