Cost of Gun Reform

The problem was D.V, when the government and anti-gun lobby groups jumped on the anti-gun band wagons to enact the new gun control legislation, they didn't bother giving the people the correct information by distinguishing between gun "homicide" deaths and gun "suicide" deaths. They basically pretended all the deaths were gun related homicides.

 

What? An article in a US journal criticsing the ABS? so what if the ABS didn't count currently open coroner's cases? How many were there? Was it enough to make any difference? And anyway, not counting those cases would only cause a small timing difference, it would make no difference whatsoever to data over a period of several years and make no difference to any trends. I am really starting to worry about your abilities to criticaly appraise information put before you DV.

 

Garbage .... I cherry picked NOTHING. These are the numbers of deaths each year from 1979 to 2011. So what is your gripe, why is it so bloody important for you that any idiot can get a gun, like they can in most US states. Do you REALLY want us to go down that road or are you just blustering for the sake of it?

 

Do you really, well my dear friend, for 10 years I managed a pathology lab, signing 10's of thousands of path results a week. Your blood work isn't an actual count of things you know, it's an educated guess based on trends. But it is accurate enough for us to diagnose diseases, most science is based on graphical results, finding trends and means. Just looking at the raw numbers can be meaningless. When you KNOW what you are talking about, get back to me aye.

 

The information contained in that link also confirmed my suspicions about the data from the AIC and ABS being incorrect, and the legislation being enacted on a an ulterior motive. A motive not necessarily in the best interest of the people in general.

 

Flawed reasoning. The US has had looser gun regulations and the gun homicide rate has also dropped. There is no correlation to gun laws and homicides. Maybe it's global warming.

 

I disagree with this to a point D.V. You being an educated and professional individual would know its ethically and morally irresponsible for someone to deceive another person by pretending that 100% of people were victims of gun homicides, when in fact 80% of those gun related deaths were suicide victims, or people who attempted suicide. The government owed the people the truth before enacting any legislation which effects every Australian.

 

Well I am not the brightest candle on the cake so let's see heh?
685, 687, 618, 689, 644, 675, 682, 677, 694, 674, 549, 595, 618, 608, 513, 516, 470, 516 ... GUN LAWS INTRODUCED ... 428, 312, 347, 324, 346, 292, 287, 234, 246, 212, 234, 237, 228, 234, 188

19 years of around the 600-700 mark, then 4 years in the 300-400, then 9 years in the 200's yep, must be global warming. LMAO

 

This debate is not on the ethics of politics or we would be here forever, it's about people being alive today who may not be alive if it wasn't for the gun laws, it may even be you and your family.

 

And all that after posting that gun deaths are being under reported. You think government might have a reason to do that after passing the law?

 

Ah another conspiracy theory, now we are hiding the truth deliberately. One question.... WHY?

 

I beg to differ on one main point. The main argument of Howard and gun lobby groups in 1996, suggested that by reducing the populations access to guns would "reduce crime", and that has not happened. Forgive me, but back in 1996, there was no discussions or debates from Howard or anti-gun lobby groups about gun related homicides, it was all about deducing guns would reduce overall crime rates. Why all of sudden do anti-gun lobby groups bring up gun related homicide victim rates to substantiate their ideas, when gun related homicide victim rates were never mentioned during the 1996 anti-gun blitz? Could it be that gun related homicides have replace crime rates, because gun homicides are the only facts available to substantiate flawed and misleading legislation relating to crime rates?

Why are you still posting numbers relating to gun homicides, and not differentiating between gun homicides and gun suicides with your figures?

 

why should I?

 

With all due respect D.V, you are a professional individual, and you also know that from a professional stand point its immoral and unethical to lie to someone and deceive them, even if its in their own best interest. I'm surprise you agree with politicians lying and deceiving the people, considering what we have discussed in previous topics.

 

You know why.

 

No I actually have no idea why, it's about people dying from guns

 

Like I said, this is not the topic,if it was about ethics in politics then I would comment. All I wanted to show is that Death by gun DID decrease, something that has been argued here till the cows came home.

 

No I do not know how many suicides still were carried out after the gun laws, or how many of them would have used a gun if it was available. I know this, a gun is a much surer way of ensuring you are dead, suicides with knives and poisons are much harder to successfully complete. Knives, poison, hanging or bashing yourself to death with a baseball bat are much harder to do, a gun is why not, squeeze, bang.

Most suicides are sick people that need our help to get better, not easier access to a gun to blow their brains out.

 

I have made myself perfectly clear during this discussion that my argument has never been about the merits of gun control within our community.

Its been about the way politicians and certain anti-gun lobby groups unprofessional manipulated data and information to substantiate a false theory in 1996 that reducing a citizens access to guns would reduce crime.

We have to remember back in 1996 the gun control laws/legislation was about reducing crime; not about gun homicide victims nor gun suicide victims.

Being an educated professional, you know its morally and ethically unprofessional to lie and deceive someone regarding the truth - regardless if its in their best interest or not.

Lies and deceptions are not a moral and ethical correct courses of action, because even when these actions are used to safeguard the well being of a community; everyone still deserves to be respected and told the truth to make their own appropriate decision. The people back in 1996 were denied this action based on misleading false information and data.

This is the major flaw in our political system, whereby politicians are allowed to lie and deceive the citizens to pass legislation without being held accountable or responsible for the lies and deceptions they create to justify their agendas.

 

Still pulling the same old misleading anti gun line. It's like talking to a religious nut, they unable to reason. There is no evidence to show that the gun laws resulted in any decrease in homicide, suicide, violent crime or firearm accidents. It doesn't matter if death by gun decreased because death didn't decrease. You are saying that you would prefer that Fred Nerk used an axe to chop up his wife and two daughters rather than used a gun to shoot them. You see, either way Fred Nerk still killed his family! The gun laws achieved nothing except to make life more difficult for people who own a gun.

 

Let's turn this into a gun porn thread.

For about 4k you can own one of these.

[video=youtube_share;TmP7h2znk1Q]http://youtu.be/TmP7h2znk1Q[/video]

 

Here is a gun that was passed down through the family. A black powder Iver and Johnson top break 38 over 100 years old. Not in great shape. It was my great grandmothers and she slept with it under her pillow to defend the homestead against pilferers down on the border.

 

I want one!!

 

I'm surprised you even suggested that "most" suicides are sick people.

 

http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_suicide.php