Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Brady Campaign Won't Admit Less Gun Control Means Less Crime
In Response to Pottering
While your wordsmithing is something I can commend I disagree with your assertion that the "Less gun control equates to less crime" is simple minded. If you look at crime rates state by state and compare that to the Brady scorecard you quickly find that states with less gun control do, in fact, have lower crime rates. I have posted this on the Brady campaign article as well but will repeat it here for good measure.
California, with the highest Brady score.
Murders per 1000 People in 2005: 3.6
Brady Score : 79/100
Kentucky, with the lowest
Murders per 1000 People in 2005: 0.4
Brady Score: 2/100
Don't get me wrong here though. I don't believe a lack of gun control has any effect on reducing crime. Nor do I believe that a lack of gun control increases crime. I believe the single most important variable is the strength of the family unit. An active parent has more power to keep their kid from becoming a criminal than taking away their neighbor's gun.
And your country, since enacting strict gun control measures in 1996, has seen a 3.2% increase in homicide, 8.6% increase in Assaults,and a whopping 45% increase in property crime. The Unites States Department of Justice states that the yearly number of murders has decreased 75% between 1976 and present. That's 2.34% per year. Just more proof that gun control has nothing to do with crime control.
- Born2Hike
February 9, 2009 2:57AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You need to check your figures
You write "And your country, since enacting strict gun control measures in 1996, has seen a 3.2% increase in homicide..." That is just plain wrong. In 1996 there were 312 murders. The latest data is for 2007 and is 253 murders (source ABS cat 4510.0) . That's a decline of 19% while the population has increased about 20% over that time. And gun laws have NO impact on things like assault and property crime in Australia because the use of guns in those crimes is virtually non-existent, and always has been, even pre-1996. You may as well have included fraud and graffiti in your list.
And how come you went back to 1976 to gauge US murders? Here's US figures for murder and non-negligent manslaughter for the more recent past;
1999 15,522
2000 15,586
2001 16,039
2002 16,229
2003 16,582
2004 16,137
2005 16,692
2006 17,034
2007 16,929
(source FBI UCR tables)
Despite this verifiable evidence you're arguing that Australia has seen an increase in murder and the US a declining murder rate? Care to elaborate?
As for the differing rates of US states that is dependent on a myriad of factors of which gun availability is just one. I'm certainly not suggesting that gun laws alone will eliminate crime, but I believe they can help.
- Pottering
March 4, 2009 5:14AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wrong, yet again
"And gun laws have NO impact on things like assault and property crime in Australia because the use of guns in those crimes is virtually non-existent, and always has been, even pre-1996."
Really? So the fact that law-abiding citizens have less means to defend themselves in Australia has no effect on the numbers of assaults and property crimes such as burglary and home invasion? Wow, talk about trying to rig the debate.
- masanf
April 13, 2009 6:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, really
Seems you can't grasp basic English. If gun defense of violent crime was virtually non-existent pre-1996 and still is where is your evidence of "that law-abiding citizens have less means to defend themselves in Australia"? The 1996 laws couldn't lessen a figure of almost zero.
It is not me rigging the debate, I provided verifiable facts to counter the false assertions of Born2hike, it's him/her you should be having a go at. And if not, why not? On the assumption you won't be chastising Born2hike, let me guess why you won't. Because you don't care if a pro-gunner blatantly lies to make a point, but you are concerned when an anti-gun person counters a pro-gun argument with facts and a reasoned position. Am I right?
- Pottering
April 14, 2009 9:38AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.