Hey Chance!

---

...here's one for you. Obama's latest push... Your boy isn't wasting too much time, is he.

again, the rest of the world laughsIn a country that not only has the most backwards firearm laws of any developed nation but also serves as the armoury for criminals in other developed countries, you seriously want to hold up an attempt at reform as evidence that Obama is a bad bad man.fucking hilarious.Also amusing are the paranoid postulations put forth in this article... banning toy guns as firearms? lmfao

I'm a gun nut, or was. I've since gotten rid of most my shit. Obama has already made the public statement several times, including to the president of Mexico, that while he may support stricter gun control laws himself there is no political will in this country for it and he has no plans to seek to restrict, further, sales of anything. The political backlash from the Clinton ban taught a lot of politicians a lesson they won't soon forget.Now think about it, why, other than their natural anti-government predilection, would gun and ammunition manufactures have an incentive to instill fear that everything is on the verge of being taken away. As someone who's dabbled in the business I can tell you there was never anything so great for the bottom line as the Clinton ban. Every wanna-be gun touting moron would pay a premium for any piece of shit as long as it looked mean. The ban was lifted and the prices never came down, not a cent. Why, because the NRA and every gun organization out there kept the pressure on that any minute the government, even under W, was going to come and take all our guns. It's by and large the same shit with ammo. The price started out going through the roof when the price of the raw goods shot up and demand weekend just because buying a thousand rounds was now one hell of an expense and people had less money to spend on that kind of shit anyway. The result less production a higher price and panic orchestrated by the manufactures as result of lag time in production to market realities. The manufactures, already in an overcrowded market, are playing of the fears of everyone and raking in the money just like happened in the '90s with firearms.

Oh, c'mon! Can't you see how much FUN it is to live here? Every person jabbing the other, doing totally moronic things that don't amount to a hill of beans anyway...
That's what I call FUN!

And now let's all do, an Edna Krabapple "Ha!"

Thats the best you can do thor?Thats it?I am a gun nut, and a damned fine shot, before my eyes went shitty, 7 and 800 yards with a peep sight was an easy shot for me, now with a scope I still can drop em in a single shot just a bit past 400. I love guns and explosives, and even I agree that certain guns should not be allowed in public hands.say a 50 cal, what the fuck are you going to do with it? do you really need to be able to shoot through a engine block and kill something on the other side of the car at 500 yards off? some guns have no purpose but to kill people.I take a more middle of the road approach to guns than most people, some common sense really helps.If that the worst thing you can say about my boy Obama, I guess it just shows I made a damned fine choice when I cast my vote last november.Keep in mind I voted FOR Obama instead of just against McLame.I bet you have a good time at the tv each night watching billow the clown, and hannity, maybe some rush fat ass too?I am disappointed Thor, I saw the title and thought it was gonna be happy birthday chance you unfortunate old bastard, instead a find a lame ass attempt at an attack at me via Obama?I hope the rest of my day is better than this.

HA!

Hmmm...some folks must not have read the whole thing. Or, they're just not good at reading the writing on the wall.They banned all guns in Australia. They took hand-guns away in England 6 years ago...and they're currently trying to take away rifles there as well. When they took away the handguns in England, gun-related crime went up 40%. It went up in Australia as well. Some folks just never learn.

up 40%?you mean 7 instead of 5 murders?I think you'd have to shoot everyone in California to increase gun related crime in the US by 40%go love your assualt rifels but don't forget to take them to church.

They didn't ban all guns in Australia, thor. And the gun-related crime rate didn't go up after restrictions were tightened. You must have been getting your information from the NRA website, which is notorious here for the way it has lied about the Australian situation. Not just got things slightly wrong, not just made a mistake, but deliberately broke the Ninth Commandment.

My sources are the folks who live there...and yes, gun-related crime went up. Both in England and Australia...especially in England. You're skirting the point, as usual. One of the selling points to the public is that crime would go down. So even if it stayed the same, that promise was (and is) an empty lie. Take guns away from law abiding citizens who voluntarily surrender them, and only the criminals who shun the law anyway, will have them.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons Gun homicides per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): USA (2001) 3.98Italy (1997) 0.81Switzerland (1998) 0.50Canada (2002) 0.4Finland (2003) 0.35Australia (2001) 0.24France (2001) 0.21England/Wales (2002) 0.15Scotland (2002) 0.06Japan (2002) 0.02look at that... it's like the fucking wild west in England and Australia

Is it possible to find an impartial study on this subject. I don't have the initiative to look but I wouldn't trust a study for the GCN anymore than I would a study from the NRA. Both ends of the spectrum in this debate seem to put their beliefs in front of the reality on the ground.

Also, I would like to see the overall homicide rate. The question is, does that (the overall rate of homicide) decrease a meaningful amount? The rates given in your post Mr. U are homicides where a gun is used. That really does nothing to speak to the effectiveness of gun laws on lowering the overall rate of homicides. What good is gun control if instead of being shot your beaten to death with a baseball bat. Homicide is still homicide regardless the means with which it is carried out. One more note, I would think, a meaningful rate of attack would also have to include attacks that not only ended in death but resulted in vegetative states of existence by both guns and other forms of attempted homicides.

most of the stats I found were fairly similar. Some try to spin it in different directions though.
GunCite tries to break out the statistics to show, well, something. The numbers still show that gun murders in the US are much more common than in so many other countries like Canada, England, Austrailia, Isreal, Kuwait, etc.
If crime is prevented by arming the polulus, then it seems like the American Vigilante program needs an overhaul.

"The numbers still show that gun murders in the US are much more common than in so many other countries..."But see there, its still death by guns. If gun ownership is illegal of course the rate of homicide by gun is going to be lower. Without looking at the overall homicide rate in the country the statistic is meaningless. Remember the desired effect of gun control is to effect change in the number of people murdered not the method by which people are murdered, which is all showing "gun murders" does. Beyond that the socioeconomic class of societies compared has to be comparable. You can't compare Aspen with the ninth ward in New Orleans and draw the conclusion that just because Aspen has fewer guns per percentage of the population that explains the difference in the rate of homicide.

Firearm Homicide Rate
Non-Firearm Homicide Rate

so yes, more people are murdered in the US by non-firearm methods. That's nothing to be proud of. When you look at the 2 lists, the US is higher in the firearm homicide ranking than it is in the non-firearm ranking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gun hater. I own guns and I always thought the Canadian Long-Gun registry was a waste of time and money. I'm just saying that firearm proliferation has a direct tie to people getting shot... homicide, suicide and accidently

And I'm not a gun lover. I just don't trust feel good statistics. I think for an honest assessment you have to start with this chart and do an in-depth review and somehow reasonably determine where gun laws would have made a difference in the outcome. I'm just not sure that the statistics tell us anything other than the U.S. is a violent place.

If you have a link showing the murder rate in a place before and after a gun ban, that may be helpful in the discussion. It can't be murder rate by firearm though. It just has to be the murder rate for a say a ten year period before a ban and a ten year period after a ban to tell anything.

Personally I have no interest in legislating firearms to try and protect people against accidental death. I have no interest in any legislation that attempts to save people from themselves. That aside I don't have any problem with waiting periods to buy.

comparing overall murders per capita to gun murders per capita illustrates the disparity.The US is #24 on the list of overall murder yet #8 on the list of gun murders. If the ready availability of guns in the US wasn't a factor, those statisitics would be much closer to each other and, if as some suggest, gun ownership prevents crime, the the gun murder rate would be even lower than the overal murder rate.Yes, pre and post gun control stats would tell part of the story and I will have to see if I can find any. But also remember, it would be part of the story as crime rates do fluctuate naturally over time.

"If the ready availability of guns in the US wasn't a factor, those statisitics would be much closer to each other..."Isn't that line of logic assuming that if the gun is not available then the murder will not take place or at least most of those murders won't take place? That seems like a big leap to me, which gets right back to the problem I had with the original GCN statistics.>>>"...it would be part of the story as crime rates do fluctuate naturally over time."Which is why I said it needs to be ten years in both directions from the time of enactment.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedGun Deaths - International Comparisons Gun homicides per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): USA (2001) 3.98Italy (1997) 0.81Switzerland (1998) 0.50Canada (2002) 0.4Finland (2003) 0.35Australia (2001) 0.24France (2001) 0.21England/Wales (2002) 0.15Scotland (2002) 0.06Japan (2002) 0.02look at that... it's like the fucking wild west in England and Australia I'll just throw Ireland in here, where all handguns are illegal and rifles are for hunting only and require a license.Ireland (2000) 0.0028Thats just under 3 people in a million. The firearm murder rate in the USA in 2001 was about 3,980 people in a million.