* Amendment...."Guns don't REDUCE crime rates, they generate them.." *

People increase the crime rate. Guns are but a tool.

from previuos post
The federal government responded to the Port Arthur massacre by funding
a gun buyback scheme. More than 700,000 guns were surrendered by
Australia's adult population of 12 million.

United states

Population:
301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.2% (male 31,152,050/female 29,777,438)
15-64 years: 67.2% (male 100,995,752/female 101,365,035)
65 years and over: 12.6% (male 15,858,477/female 21,991,195) (2007 est.)

Area:
total: 9,826,630 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 664,707 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia

Australia

Area:
total: 7,686,850 sq km
land: 7,617,930 sq km
water: 68,920 sq km
note: includes Lord Howe Island and Macquarie Island

Population:
20,434,176 (July 2007 est.)

Age structure:
0-14 years: 19.3% (male 2,023,375/female 1,929,229)
15-64 years: 67.4% (male 6,945,068/female 6,831,653)
65 years and over: 13.2% (male 1,197,494/female 1,507,357) (2007 est.)

aussie -- land is about 78% the size of the states

aussie – population is less than 7%that of the states

7% of the people in over 75% of the land mass would cause for a lot less
interaction and reduce almost all side effects of all intermingling

such a drastic difference in per area population makes like comparing
apples and oranges

Actually- we're not comparing apples and oranges. We're comparing the
apple with itself from the past. And the orange with itself from the
past. And the banana, kiwi, grapefruit, tomato, and whatever other friut
shows up. It's proven the same results for every single one.


This isn't medical, it's mechanical. It doesn't change dramatically
between cases. It stays relatively the same relation.

The availability of legal guns is INVERSELY proportionate to the rates
of violent gun crimes.

if you hav 7 people per sq mile
compared to
100 people per sq mile

which do you think we be easier to manipulate the actions of

it is easier to control a smaller population

the united states is the third largest in population behind
china and india
one of the biggest problems w/united states is the failure to
inforse the laws they have proberly

if they would crime rate would drop

if gunusers would actually get the stiffer sentance they are promiced
maybe the use of guns in crime would go down

but after all the liberial brue ha ha they might spend 1/3 0f their
total sentance behind bars

Dude. It's the liberals who are trying to get rid of guns.


But regardless- the measurements of various countries' gun violence was
compared AGAINST THEMSELVES. So it's a "perfect" value- meaning
population has no impact.

my two cents worth....


i grew up in middle of nowhere montana.. about 60 miles from the freeman
standoff of '95 (i think that was the rite year) i am a firm belever in
a persons rite to bear arms... i also am abelever in goverment
background checks to buy guns...

i am an assistant manager in a retail chain.. i once had a guy come in
and try and hold up the store i was in with a gun.. after the resolution
of the situation, it was discovered that the man had been trying to
purchase a gun for over two years, unsuccessfully.. he had eventualy
gone to a gun store and held up teh gun store with a knife... dont ask
me how..... and goten the gun to hold up our store....

where i grew up every farmer, rancher and country person (man or woman)
had a shotgun in the back window of the truck and a pistol under the
seat or in the glovebox.... we used tehm to shoot snakes, coyotes, and
to ensure peace of mind for our families.. from the time i was 7 i knew
how to shoot, load and clean all teh guns in our house.... as did my
brothers... safety for our children concerning guns is more of a matter
of education and boundaries than anything else......


ok thats my random 2 cents.. i may have used up 25cents.. so heres a
quarter.. hehe

that is not correct

density is relative as to control

if you have 5% gun per population

and you have 700 people then you would have 35 guns

if you have 10000 people then you have 500 guns

if they all live in the control area of the study and you by back 20% of
the guns

thus leaving

3 guns in possision of the 700

400 guns in possision of the 10000

so you have 100 law biding people turning in the guns
leaving 400 w/the population

does it not make sense that the drop if any would be
greater when you are left w/3 guns in the smaller populatin
than it would when left with 400 guns in the greater population

you no numbers can be manipulated to say almost anything

kinda like the garden of allah song by don henly

i can get you any result you like i am an expert witness cause
i say i am ---

there is no right there is no wrong only data to be manipulated

and a good two cents it is izzie

previous post

Dude. It's the liberals who are trying to get rid of guns.
________________________________________________________

and one of the best ways to do it is to keep letting gun using
offenders out in 1/3 the sentance on good behaviour

so they can use a gun again

I'd rather have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it.
I started shooting before I started to school (always with adult
supervision of course). Shooting a gun is like knowing how to swim, its
something you might need to know how to do someday.

i am a firm beliver in age related gun safty in the school system

ignorance of guns kill kids not the guns

and stupidity of the audult helps as well

cause they should teach the kids about them

shot a jug of water and when it explodes tell them
it can do the same to a person if not handled properly

I agree Adj4U. My Daddy had guns in the house as far back as I can
remember. We always knew where they were and what would happen to us if
we messed with them. We never went near them unless he was with us. He
taught us gun safety and to have respect for what they could do. For
instance the most basic firearm rule is that any firearm is assumed to
be loaded and the first thing you do when you pick it up is to check.

ok not trying to be a butt here, but australia's population as of dec of
2006 was roughly 20,260,000 people.

total number of criminal acts in australia for the year of 2006
was...677,967 that is 3.3 percent of the population, and a decrease from
2005 which was 680,101. 695,766 in 2004. although it does appear that
crime in australia is on the decline, these numbers reflect the over all
crime rate, not just the violent crime rate. I have those numbers as
well ( i have only added the crimes that had the use of a handgun or
weapon of some kind, or were violent in nature;
Abduction and kidnapping
Arson
Assault - Domestic violence related
Assault - Not domestic violence related
Attempted murder
Blackmail and extortion
Harassment, threatening behaviour and private nuisance
Indecent assault, act of indecency and other sexual offences
Manslaughter - driving
Manslaughter - not driving
Murder
Murder accessory, conspiracy
Offensive language
Other theft
Prohibited and regulated weapons offences
Robbery with a firearm
Robbery with a weapon not a firearm
Robbery without a weapon
Sexual assault

1998-166,675 which is .0082 percent of the total population 1999-177,482
2000-193,795 2001-203,293
2002-191,748 2003-185,685 2004-177,049 2005-176,989 and
2006-174,703
from 1998 to 2001 crime was on the steady increase then in 2002 it
dropped and has been on the decline since.
if you go back to the year that the stats started being keep according
to the beruea of crime and statics 1998 and on, there has been a total
of.....6,467,011 criminal acts. that is basically every 1 out of 3
people. .319 percent of the population will be involved in a crime.

the US population 298,500,000 roughly as of july 2006

violent criminal acts 1,321,000 reported and 675,900 arrests wee made on
those reports which represents about .22 of one percent or .00226 % of
the total population in 1998. moving forward to 2005 1,191,000 reported
cases with 603,500 arrests made which represents an even lower percent
of .00202 of the total population.

ok so whats my point? even though america has more criminal cases, we
have a larger population and those cases represent a small percent of
our population that australian population. what can be taken away from
this is that per capita- australia has more violent crimes than te US,
and a more stringent gun control law does not prove to lessen crime in
any way.


sorry if this is confusing , just kinda googled everything, and threw it
in here as quickly as i could, the info is solid tho.




doc


ps, america is safer per capita.

ooops forgot to take out one of the catagories for australia, bet you
can guess which one that is, kinda amazing side note tho. its a crime to
use offensive langauge? yikes.

Jese642 if guns increase the crime rate, why does South Dakota where
there are ample guns and citizens can apply for and get a concealed
carry permit with ease have one on the lowest murder rates in the U.S.
while Washington D.C. where handguns are forbidden and which has one of
the most restrictive gun laws on the books have the highest murder rate
in the U.S. when the population of South Dakota and Washington D. C. are
approxmiately the same. Guns dont cause crime, people cause crime. Ted
Kennedy and Bill Janklow's cars have both killed more people than my
unregistered guns.

Gun deaths are down, crimes by guns are down,

The report said it could not directly comment on the association between
the new gun laws and firearm death rates because of the observational
nature of the available data.



The report ignored factors such as whether Australians were resorting to
other methods to kill or commit suicide, he said.


"For example, suicide by hanging has increased dramatically," Whelan
told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Didnt have to say a word..It said it itself...

There were three key words to my original post...."In my opinion"..
although I used the word solve instead of reduce..


"Guns don't REDUCE crime rates, they generate them, in my opinion.."

My explanation of this is as an individual living in Australia, for my
entire life, and for the last 11 years,since the changes to legislation,
where guns are not a household, nor personal accessory...and growing up
in a populated area, a city, Sydney.

A comment made consistently through this thread is 'I have a gun, I have
a right to a gun, I will keep a gun'...

Why? Because you anticipate violence? Is it that it is common to be
conditioned to expect violence, and to be no longer safe within your own
personal space?

I live in an area of frighteningly high crime rates per capita, domestic
violence being the highest, both reported and unreported, and there has
been one death within this Shire related to violence with a gun in the
past few years..

What is my point here? I have high stats of violence around me in this
town,(and considering the population size is tiny), but still I sleep
with my doors open, my keys in my car, and couldn't tell you where my
house keys are, to lock my house, and I live in town..because I don't
anticipate violence with every breath, I do not live with the
conditioned fear that a gun will keep my family and I safe.

Doc, your stats are good , in regards to Australia, however, one person
per however many square miles, makes us sound like we do not come into
contact with other people very often. What you may have overlooked, is
the volume of populations in cities and large towns, then compared that
to isolated areas...I think you may find the density of the Australian
population lives in fairly small surface areas..

The population of Australia is small in comparison to other countries,
big deal, whose culture do we follow? Whose tv programmes are drip fed
to us and our children? Whose political bed does our leaders sleep in?
We are being conditioned to think as your country does, and not in a
balanced way..

And for those that don't know...yours. It is quite disturbing to hear
young Australian children playing make-believe with American accents,
only in that they adopted these accents from tv and movies,...and sadly
there are many, many, of your programmes aired here, that feature guns,
violence with guns, every second person, whipping out a handgun, and
blowing the bad guy away. What is my point here? In mentioning this?
Again, we are being conditioned to think that violence is all around us,
waiting to leap out at us.The apparent undercurrent of fear of the
constant threat of violence, in your country, seems to be high, with
most wanting to own a gun to protect themselves..

It is hard for me to understand this mentality, I do not live in a
society in constant fear of violence, (although I, personally, have been
exposed to plenty, including violence with a gun)..whether this gives me
a protracted veiw on the subject, or a more balanced perspective, is
really only semantics.

If guns are not available, they cannot be used in crimes of passion, as
seen recently, and out of respect, I won't mention the college's name..

But before I get leapt on with , "If someone else had a gun there would
have been less deaths", there is another side of thought here, if the
perpetrator of that violence hadn't had access to a gun, there may not
have been any deaths..

If he didn't have a gun. He'd have used a knife or a bomb. There's no
way to evade the fact that humans kill other humans. All you can do is
fight back when it happens.


You don't have to fear violence in order to know it exists.


And you can't deny the rise in crime rates. As another said, Colorado
has one of the most liberal gun laws in the states. The crime rates in
Denver (a city larger, in population, to Sidney) is far, far lower.
Criminals go somewhere safer.


And don't blame Americanization for your violence level. This is an
American city, after all.

I did not blame Americanisation for violence in this country, I said it
attributes to an awareness of fear of violence...

If it was not stated clearly enough, my apologies...

I am not one to accuse and point fingers at any, we are us, but there
are influences and contributers to cultures...