Michael New. Skar?

[JP Dogberry]

I don't live in the city with the gang wars. (That's right, ONE city, out of a lot, has a gang war.) So I don't need to worry about getting in the way of that.

Secondly, that is two groups of people. Yay, eight people in Australia managed to secure illegal guns! And Shoot each other!

See, the day a kid takes a gun to school and kills a dozen innocent people in Australia, will be the day I consider Australia to have a problem with guns.

In actual fact, I can only think of two gun related incidents in Australia: the recent gang war and the Port Arthur Massacre, which happened something like eight years ago. How many happen in the US?

Once again, I don't like getting shot. If there's only two shooting incidents I can think of, then I'm not too afraid of it.

[Entsuropi]

See, the day a kid takes a gun to school and kills a dozen innocent people in Australia, will be the day I consider Australia to have a problem with guns.

That's happened at least once here. Possibly twice.

And remember, you have a lot less people than the USA. Therefore, you have a lower chance of psychos.

[Master Xaio]

Ok, for some clarification - when we refer to gangs, we are referring to professional criminals.  Like, 2 large mafia gangs (yeah, I know they're not actually mafia).  I can't think of the word you guys would use.  But we aren't referring to punks on the street.  We're talking about 2 groups of proffessional  criminals.

[Master Xaio]

However, the guns CAN be gotten. By kids. If they try.

No, thats our point.  With the gun controls, laws etc. kids **can't** guns.  Professional criminals - yes.  Kids and general populace - no.

[Skar]

So your laws have succeeded in disarming your general populace while criminals can still get guns.  That must make the hardened criminals feel very safe when they commit violent crimes.

[Master Xaio]

Hardened criminals are going to get guns whether you have laws or not.  However, the other offenders, smalltime, and kids - like those at Columbine - **can't** get guns.  Which significantly reduces the possibility of crime and death from firearms.

The people who could really get guns if they wanted on a black market are hardcore criminal types. Like, really hardcore organised crime. The sort you don't run into randomly on the street, and the sort who generally are shooting people for a good reason, not random people on the street. (Which would get them arrested really quickly.)

- thats what we're saying.

So you think that arming the general populace (like, hm... I know, in America!? Where, y'know, there is a higher death rate by guns by far...) would stop hardened criminals, make it safer for them? If anything, its going to **promote** criminal acts, because access to firearms is easier.

[Archon]

So let me get this straight. You agree that the people who are, by far, the most dangerous, can still get guns. You agree that people who want to defend themselves, (possibly from someone with a knife by the way) have the hardest time getting guns. So really what the gun control laws do is disarm those that wouldnt abuse a gun, while still allowing those that would do serious damage with them to have them.

No, thats our point.  With the gun controls, laws etc. kids **can't** guns.  Professional criminals - yes.  Kids and general populace - no.

Oh really. So I have heard of kids in high school with a working ROCKET LAUNCHER. A kid. And they dont sell those at any department store. Those are regulated, and a kid got one. Among other things. There was a story about a week ago in the news about a kid that was going to shoot up his high school, and he had ILLEGAL AK47s. Once again, a kid.

[Master Xaio]

Oh really. So I have heard of kids in high school with a working ROCKET LAUNCHER. A kid. And they dont sell those at any department store. Those are regulated, and a kid got one. Among other things. There was a story about a week ago in the news about a kid that was going to shoot up his high school, and he had ILLEGAL AK47s. Once again, a kid.

If you can provide me evidence that that happened in Australia, I'd be most interested.

So really what the gun control laws do is disarm those that wouldnt abuse a gun, while still allowing those that would do serious damage with them to have them.

You're missing the point Archon.  Just let me once again compare two counties, one **with** gun control laws, and one **without** gun control laws.  Australia and America perhaps?

Now, I don't know the exact stats for firearm deaths in the US.  However, I **do** know that they who don't have gun control laws, have a much higher death rate by them.  You say that people "wouldnt abuse a gun" - let me once again direct your attention to columbine.  Or any number of gun deaths in america which **aren't** the result of hardcore criminals.  Your arguement that the general populace wouldn't abuse firearms has holes bigger than a nuclear crater in it Archon.

I've just finished googling for firearm deaths in America -- 89 deaths per day.  I'm sure you can work out what that comes to per year.
Now, looking at Australia.  Our death rates are much much lower than that.  Round 400 per year in fact.  Are you starting to get the point?

You agree that people who want to defend themselves, (possibly from someone with a knife by the way) have the hardest time getting guns.

 

Yes, that is true.  However, the converse of that is that we have a lower death rate.  And the criminal themself doesn't have a gun.  So I'm willing to accept the risk of walking the streets, and being confronted by a dude with a knife, rather than walking the streets with a gun, and being confronted by someone with a gun.

You agree that the people who are, by far, the most dangerous, can still get guns.

Yes, these two gangs in melbourne *can* get guns.  The laws are not designed to stop very rich gangs, with underworld contacts, from buying guns.  They're designed to stop your average pleb, from buying a gun and going next door, and killing the dude who insulted him at the pub last week.  And they do stop that.

You argue that people should carry a gun, to fight against criminals.  Dude, ever heard of the police? Thats their job, not the public's.  Carrying a gun, and distributing guns to the widespread populace only encourages death and injury by them, not a lower rate of crime.

[JP Dogberry]

Gee, American kids can get Rocket Launchers. Good luck on that happening here.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

i'd be willing to wager the kid with the rocket launcher BUILT it, rather than buying it. We do that sort of thing

lets manipulate some stats, shall we? 89 deaths per day = roughly .001% of the population. One in 100,000. That's not all that much, considering that we live in more crowded conditions than exist in Australia.

And it's hardly the case that all violent crime is from guns. there were 4800 violent crimes commited in Australia in 2001. Against kids between the ages of 15-19.  2 in every 10,000 persons in Australia was raped or beaten that year. And that's only counting the crime against kids in their late teens. So I hope you feel safe.

[Master Xaio]

SE, if you're going use statistics, at least use them on the same thing.  Instead of using statistics from two different topics and giving the impression of comparison between them.

Rounded, here are the comparitive percentages of deaths by firearms.

America:   0.011
Australia:  0.002

I don't think I need to say any more on that front.  

I'm not saying that every violent crime is caused by firearms.  Not at all.  However, as the discussion was confined to firearms previously, thats all I was talking about.  If you want to discuss other crimes as well SE, tell me and I'd be quite happy to.

EDIT:  My apologies if my tone in this post was offensive.  It wasn't intended that way.

[Archon]

I dont think that they built it, although it is possible, the story I heard was vague. It doesnt seem like my point was perceived however. What I was trying to show was that a regulated weapon made its way into the hands of someone who was not a mobster.

Dude, ever heard of the police?

Yeah. Ever heard of line of sight? Meaning that a cop isnt always going to be around when you are in a bad situation. If you were being followed by a guy with a knife, or were getting mugged, would you rather pin your hopes on a cop coming to save the day, or would you rather have a gun in your pocket so that you can do something for yourself?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

it's hardly irrelevant. We're talking about guns, but the premise for your objection to guns is that it reduces violence. As has been stated before, guns aren't the only implement for violence. There appears to be ample violence without it.

case in point: here's an article from last year about a school murder in New South Wales that didn't even involve a gun. no it's no columbine, but you haven't stopped the source of the problem.

In fact, in 2003 murders in AUstralia ROSE by 20% even as handgun violence dropped. The point? You don't need a gun to commit a murder or to proliferate violence crime.

Yes, I recognize the disparity of the percentages, but you can't just leave it at that. You imply that the ONLY reason for those disparities is the presence of guns, yet you ignore what I've already brought up: that population density has a VERY REAL impact on the numbers as well.

[Master Xaio]

Ok, let me point something out here SE.  That case was huge in Australia.  Why?  Because it happens so little.  It is a very very rare occurrence.  Whereas in the US, killing, murders etc. are a lot more common.  

Yes, you're right, population density probably does have a little to do with it.  However, we **do** primarily live in cities in Australia.  I still say that the gun control laws make it safer here.

And if you want to look at violent deaths between 15-19, the US is higher by at least 2000 than Australia.

[JP Dogberry]

Yeah, see, just think if that kid did have a gun, what would have happned?