• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's something for gun grabbers to ponder

So significantly reducing the amount of firearms resulted in a significant reduction in firearms deaths. Thanks, I think so as well.

Thank you for also supporting the position that significantly increasing the number of firearms resulted in a significant decrease in firearms deaths. Was that so hard?
 
Thank you for also supporting the position that significantly increasing the number of firearms resulted in a significant decrease in firearms deaths. Was that so hard?

Paul Simon is one of my favorite musicians. I think one of his best lines is "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". From The Boxer, my dads favorite songs. I can't count the amount of times I have listened to it. Gotta go.
 
Paul Simon is one of my favorite musicians. I think one of his best lines is "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". From The Boxer, my dads favorite songs. I can't count the amount of times I have listened to it. Gotta go.

Well, let's take a look at the numbers and see if Simon was right. Here is a graph showing the violent crime rate since 2007, a 20% decrease:

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

(Source of data: United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2014)

During that same time, the number of carry permits nationwide increased from 4.6 million to 12.8 million - an increase of nearly 300%.

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report - Washington Times

Your implication that more guns necessarily leads to more crime and death is patently and demonstrably false.
 
So significantly reducing the amount of firearms resulted in a significant reduction in firearms deaths. Thanks, I think so as well.

SO by extension you are saying if we reduce the number of vehicles the number of vehicle accidents will decrease. If we significantly reduce the number of knives the number of stabbings will reduce. If we significantly reduce the number of sticks and stones there will be no more killings. Is that how your theory works? Do you have any proof that reducing the number of firearms will reduce VIOLENT CRIME?

I don't think anyone is really interested if you don't like the tools used in crime or fear criminals who use certain of those tools. It would be madness to base our laws on peoples fears. I thought we were done with that and civilisation had moved on.
 
SO by extension you are saying if we reduce the number of vehicles the number of vehicle accidents will decrease. If we significantly reduce the number of knives the number of stabbings will reduce. If we significantly reduce the number of sticks and stones there will be no more killings. Is that how your theory works? Do you have any proof that reducing the number of firearms will reduce VIOLENT CRIME?

I don't think anyone is really interested if you don't like the tools used in crime or fear criminals who use certain of those tools. It would be madness to base our laws on peoples fears. I thought we were done with that and civilisation had moved on.

Logical fallacy, try again.
 
So significantly reducing the amount of firearms resulted in a significant reduction in firearms deaths. Thanks, I think so as well.

Australia didn't really significantly reduce the amount of firearms but banned and confiscated (but paid the involuntary sellers) several TYPES of firearms

the ones that are rarely used for suicides

getting back closer to home (i.e. in the USA) firearms NUMBERS have gone WAY up and firearms deaths have gone DOWN
 
Well, let's take a look at the numbers and see if Simon was right. Here is a graph showing the violent crime rate since 2007, a 20% decrease:

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

(Source of data: United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2014)

During that same time, the number of carry permits nationwide increased from 4.6 million to 12.8 million - an increase of nearly 300%.

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report - Washington Times

Your implication that more guns necessarily leads to more crime and death is patently and demonstrably false.

I like the crime rate data table. Totals increased annually until around 1992 or 18-19 years after Roe v Wade and have dropped steadily ever since. The concealed permit data is only from when Obama took office so the trend was there well before that. Looks like a steady decline as well, no major swings. If concealed permits and gun ownership was the direct cause shouldn't we see more of a spike later from 2008 since the permits and ownership has spiked? Not a statistician, just asking questions. Good table.
 
I like the crime rate data table. Totals increased annually until around 1992 or 18-19 years after Roe v Wade and have dropped steadily ever since. The concealed permit data is only from when Obama took office so the trend was there well before that. Looks like a steady decline as well, no major swings. If concealed permits and gun ownership was the direct cause shouldn't we see more of a spike later from 2008 since the permits and ownership has spiked? Not a statistician, just asking questions. Good table.

The permits and ownership didn't spike in 2008 as indicated in the article I also included. Permits have nearly tripled in the past 8 years. And the reason I only included the time period since Obama took office is that the numbers for permits during that period were readily available. However, it stands to reason that since the number of states that issued permits has also been increasing steadily in the past two decades that the number of permits issued would have done the same. (You can see a graphic indicating year-by-year progression of carry permit issuance here.) We now have some form of licensing scheme in all 50 states thanks to the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald.
 
The permits and ownership didn't spike in 2008 as indicated in the article I also included. Permits have nearly tripled in the past 8 years. And the reason I only included the time period since Obama took office is that the numbers for permits during that period were readily available. However, it stands to reason that since the number of states that issued permits has also been increasing steadily in the past two decades that the number of permits issued would have done the same. (You can see a graphic indicating year-by-year progression of carry permit issuance here.) We now have some form of licensing scheme in all 50 states thanks to the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald.

Permits have nearly tripled in the past 8 years yet crime has steadily decreased slowly as it has since before that time. Leads me to believe gun permits have very little impact for or against.
 
Permits have nearly tripled in the past 8 years yet crime has steadily decreased slowly as it has since before that time. Leads me to believe gun permits have very little impact for or against.

Certainly sheds quite considerable doubt on the "more guns = more crime" mantra so often repeated, does it not?
 
Certainly sheds quite considerable doubt on the "more guns = more crime" mantra so often repeated, does it not?

And the notion that it reduces crime. I am curious if the "Freakonomics" authors have tackled the subject.
 
And the notion that it reduces crime. I am curious if the "Freakonomics" authors have tackled the subject.

John Lott tackled it. Not just once, either. He tackled it in More Guns: Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.
 
There's a lot of talk about protecting the public from guns and how people who own guns are so much more prone to injury or death by a gun. Well, this study may well show that there's some validity to those concerns though, once again, it doesn't appear that guns themselves are actually the problem.

Transgender Suicide Attempt Rates Are Staggering


Now, assuming that this study is assessment of the facts, should we add gender identity to the NICS database and make "non-conforming" individuals prohibited persons? Seems to me that doing so would save some lives and that's what these "common sense" laws are all about, right?

If we save even one transgender, it'll be worth oppressing the 40% of them. :thumbs:
 
And the notion that it reduces crime. I am curious if the "Freakonomics" authors have tackled the subject.

You know of anyone who has shown John Lott to be wrong? The very fact you had to use smear tactics instead of just showing he was wrong says it all for your silly false comment. Do you not have anything better to do than parrot gun control propaganda?
 
I started with suicides but posted the chart and references the article which had both. Here is a summary posted earlier.

As Australian economist Andrew Leigh found in a 2010 review of the effects of the gun buyback legislation:

• Firearm suicides have dropped from 2.2 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.8 per 100,000 in 2006.

• Firearm homicides have dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006.

• These are drops of 65% and 59%, respectively, and among a population of 20 million individuals, represent a decline in the number of deaths by firearm suicide of about 300 and in the number of deaths by firearm homicide of about 40 per year.

• At the same time, the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen by 27% and the non-firearm homicide rate by 59%.

If you have an issue with the study you should contact economist Andrew Leigh in Australia.

OMG not the damn Aussies again.

No need to contact Leigh. He is being economical with the truth cherry picking and ignoring what does not suit his agenda. You contact him and tell him to respond to Lotts claims sending you a copy. Let's see what you get.

Can the clueless clowns of gun control not contact each other to let others know they are riding a dead horse?

Report to the Parliament of Australia on “The ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related
violence in the community”
John R. Lott, Jr.
President
Crime Prevention Research Center
212 Lafayette Ave
Swarthmore, PA 19081
United States
Crime Prevention Research Center - To subscribe to the CPRC, write us at [email]info@crimeresearch.org[/email] & put "subscribe" in subject line. Website address crimeresearch.orgCrime Prevention Research Center
johnrlott@crimeresearch.org
(484) 802-5373
Submitted August 15th, 2014

The impact of Australia’s gun buyback in 1996-97 is a lot less obvious that most might think. The buyback resulted in more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, reducing gun ownership from 3.2 to 2.2 million guns. But since then there has been a steady increase in the number of privately owned guns. By 2010, the total number of privately owned guns was back to the level in 1996. While Australia’s population grew by 19 percent between 1997 and 2010, the total number of guns soared by 45 percent. If gun control advocates are correct, gun crimes or suicides should have plunged in 1997 but gradually increased after that. But that is not the pattern that we observe.

The pattern from firearm suicides can be seen in Figure A.2 While it is true that firearm suicides did fall after the buyback, they was falling for an entire decade prior to the buyback. Indeed the rate of firearm suicides was falling at about the same rate after the buyback as they were before hand. After the buyback, there was no sudden drop and then an increase. But it isn’t just firearm suicides that fell after the buyback -- non-firearm suicides fell by virtually the same about as firearm suicides.

Firearm homicides only fell EIGHT (8) years after the buy back why is that? Why is this fact not mentioned in this so called study?
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf

FACT is no study can be shown to validate gun controls claims, not one. There is a simple reason you have conveniently neglected to address. There is no causal relationship between levels of firearm ownership and crime. If there was gun control would have it blazoned across the sky in 1 mile high burning letters.
 
Last edited:
OMG not the damn Aussies again.

No need to contact Leigh. He is being economical with the truth cherry picking and ignoring what does not suit his agenda. You contact him and tell him to respond to Lotts claims sending you a copy. Let's see what you get.

Can the clueless clowns of gun control not contact each other to let others know they are riding a dead horse?

Report to the Parliament of Australia on “The ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related
violence in the community”
John R. Lott, Jr.
President
Crime Prevention Research Center
212 Lafayette Ave
Swarthmore, PA 19081
United States
Crime Prevention Research Center - To subscribe to the CPRC, write us at [email]info@crimeresearch.org[/email] & put "subscribe" in subject line. Website address crimeresearch.orgCrime Prevention Research Center
johnrlott@crimeresearch.org
(484) 802-5373
Submitted August 15th, 2014

The impact of Australia’s gun buyback in 1996-97 is a lot less obvious that most might think. The buyback resulted in more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, reducing gun ownership from 3.2 to 2.2 million guns. But since then there has been a steady increase in the number of privately owned guns. By 2010, the total number of privately owned guns was back to the level in 1996. While Australia’s population grew by 19 percent between 1997 and 2010, the total number of guns soared by 45 percent. If gun control advocates are correct, gun crimes or suicides should have plunged in 1997 but gradually increased after that. But that is not the pattern that we observe.

The pattern from firearm suicides can be seen in Figure A.2 While it is true that firearm suicides did fall after the buyback, they was falling for an entire decade prior to the buyback. Indeed the rate of firearm suicides was falling at about the same rate after the buyback as they were before hand. After the buyback, there was no sudden drop and then an increase. But it isn’t just firearm suicides that fell after the buyback -- non-firearm suicides fell by virtually the same about as firearm suicides.

Firearm homicides only fell EIGHT (8) years after the buy back why is that? Why is this fact not mentioned in this so called study?
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf

FACT is no study can be shown to validate gun controls claims, not one. There is a simple reason you have conveniently neglected to address. There is no causal relationship between levels of firearm ownership and crime. If there was gun control would have it blazoned across the sky in 1 mile high burning letters.

The percentage of NON firearm suicides and homicides was listed and if you bothered to read our exchanges we came to the conclusion that gun ownership in the US had very little impact in the US for or against thereby rendering both sides claims as false.
 
The percentage of NON firearm suicides and homicides was listed and if you bothered to read our exchanges we came to the conclusion that gun ownership in the US had very little impact in the US for or against thereby rendering both sides claims as false.

I don't pick sides and prefer the truth over anything. Firearm owners and the NRA are just stupid in pushing a more guns less crime strategy as it is in direct conflict with gun control and neither side will willingly give an inch. There simply is no common ground for agreement an d unlike the NRA capitulation and surrendering our rights is not negotiation of finding common ground. It's gross stupidity.

The point is you indicated the Australian research was good when that clearly is not the case by posting the fraudulently claimed results. John Lott has addressed those Australian frauds in a number of papers of which I gave you only one.

You are wasting your time telling me that it makes no difference. I am sufficiently intelligent to realise that if there is no causal relationship neither an increase or decrease in the level of firearm ownership should make any difference unless it can be related. We know from thousands of attempts at decreasing objects to the point of bans makes little difference at all and mostly has huge negative results as in the case of pornography, alcohol and drugs. The is no reason on this earth why guns will be any different. The only point of interest is that gun control is a complete LIE. Those that claim of success of gun control are invariably defrauding the public to obtain research grant money.

The only thing that can be relied on is criminals are more afraid of meeting an armed citizen than the police. Given the knowledge that there are arms and occupants in the house criminals choose softer targets. You may want to read the Wright - Rossi government survey of prison felons. Note these are deflections of crime and no reduction is being claimed.

If anyone wants to be safer they have to realise that their safety is their responsibility and big brother cannot provide it and never will.
 
Back
Top Bottom