In Australia, The Gun Control “Paradise”

Spike in handgun crimes reveals nation’s secret problem. Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country’s underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade.

 

In a surprising find , Prohibition is not effective. A black market has boomed in the land down under for semi-automatic handguns, a prohibited item to the peaceful and law abiding. Where there is a demand a supply will be generated. And if the only demand is criminal because the law blocks the lawful, only one class is going to be dipping into the generated supply then.

 

Previously unseen police statistics show that the number of pistol-related offences doubled in Victoria and rose by 300 per cent in New South Wales. At least two other states also saw a massive jump in firearms-related offences during the same period.

 

The statistics detail the types of firearms offences police have pursued in the courts in the past decade and show some concerning findings, including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

 

Small concealable accessible weapons have been the criminal mainstay for eternity. Just because the island nation has said guns are bad, hasn’t influenced criminal demand in the direction the law intended.

 

In short, Gun Control doesn’t prevent gun crimes. Gun control just keeps rehashing what is a crime since murder and violent action will continue because some people are evil.

Comments

Ryan Messano Added Dec 5, 2018 - 2:57pm
Great article.  It should be easy to understand gun control doesn't work when the leading gun crime cities in America have gun control, but liberals don't do math or history very well.
 
The liberals and their RINO supporters on here are having a temper tantrum because they were shown facts on their hero, Barry the Fairy.  Don't mind them, they will be temperamental for a few days.  It's how kids act.    
 
Liberals are pretty intellectually bereft, and rarely do they have libraries in their homes, but John Lott Jr. wrote a great book on the topic.  
Dale Ruff Added Dec 5, 2018 - 3:25pm
The three nations which have virtually banned guns, the UK, Japan, and South Korea (all high-income, developed nations)  all have 99.9% lower gun murder rates than the US.
 
In Australia, since the gun law reforms of 1996,  gun murders are down 60% and overall murders down 50%.
 
Prohibition works best; strict gun laws banning certain kinds of weapons are second best;  denial of their effectiveness, which is an empirical fact, is part of the 
cause of the US having had 500,000 gun deaths since 9/11 with over 200,000 murders.  In the same period, the UK had 650 and Japan had about 100.  
 
Gun laws and gun bans work, if made national or universal (local gun laws don't work so well since you just go to the next town, county or state, or buy in a private sale).....as the evidence shows.
 
Here are sources for those who want to factcheck:
gunpolicy.org,  FBI Table of Homicides,  nationmaster/homicides; Wikipedia/homicides.
 
When someone tries to convince you that gun laws, or bans, don't work,  whack them with the facts.
Ryan Messano Added Dec 5, 2018 - 4:09pm
Dale, can you please zip it and stay off Google?  Apparently your indoctrination by the media, Google, and schools has left you a brainwashed wreck, and you keep running around WB with your disinformation. 
 
Go back to Google and go SERIOUSLY research the counterpoints to all your silly points, and EDUCATE yourself.  Stop running with every google search you run across.
Ryan Messano Added Dec 5, 2018 - 4:11pm
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 5, 2018 - 6:38pm
The U.S.A. has 10 times the rate of firearm related deaths as Australia. 
 
Whether the rate is going up or not in AU, it's still many times lower than the U.S. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 5, 2018 - 11:00pm
Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp.
649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”
Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling: Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not.  The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population). . . . 
 
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that “gun don’t kill people, people do” – the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
 
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original) 
http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Dale Ruff Added Dec 5, 2018 - 11:19pm
The three nations with the strictest gun laws (and very few guns) have a gun murder rate 99.9% lower than the US, which of all the 35 advanced/high-income nations has the loosest laws and the most guns (1/3-1/2 of all private guns in the world).   gunpolicy.org
 
Of the other 34 advanced nations, none of which views gun ownership as a right and all of which have much more restrictive gun laws, the  gun murder rate is 85% (Canada) to 99.9%  lower than the US.
 
The US, with more guns than the other 34 developed nations combined, also has more gun murders than the other 34 nations combined.
 
Regarding the article cited above,  the Harvard School of Public Health states:  "The article appears in a publication, described as a "student law review for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.” It does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal, or one that is searching for truth as opposed to presenting a certain world view. The paper itself is not a scientific article, but a polemic, making the claim that gun availability does not affect homicide or suicide. It does this by ignoring most of the scientific literature, and by making too many incorrect and illogical claims.
A review of the scientific literature (more than 20 studies) finds that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
 
For instance, peer-reviewed research found that homes with guns have nearly 3 times more gun deaths than homes without.
 
In 2016, the nation with the most guns had 15,500 gun homicides while the nations with the least had 1 (Japan), 17 (the UK) and fewer than 10 (South Korea).
 
 
Another peer-reviewed study found that of the 10 states with the most guns, they had 40% more gun murders (and more suicides) than the 10 states with the fewest guns.
 
Non peer-reviewed  studies must be treated as opinion or polemic.  
 
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/06/Kates-Mauser.pdf
 
Don't let anyone  lie to you.  As for Australia, after the 1996 new gun laws, the gun murder rate is down by 60% and the overall murder rate is down 50% and suicides are also down.  You can fact check at gunpolicy.org.
 
More guns means more gun violence: it's a proven fact, peer-reviewed, and unrefuted by any peer-reviewed  studies.
 
Some, not wishing to face the truth,  trash peer-review, but the fact is that peer-review is why science is so successful, for when it veers from the truth, as it sometimes does, peer-review  exposes the flaws and so science, based on peer review,  is self-correcting, unlike dogma, opinion, or  propaganda.
 
The claim that there is no correlation between guns and gun murder  is pure NRA propaganda, intended to confuse or brainwash the gullible, and to thwart any common sense laws (such as universal background checks, supported by 97% of gun owners) to reduce gun violence because the gun makers who fund the NRA  put private profit above public safety.
 
 
 
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 1:45am
"The three nations which have virtually banned guns, the UK, Japan, and South Korea (all high-income, developed nations)  all have 99.9% lower gun murder rates than the US."
 
And the UK and Australia have violent crime rates four and five times the rates in the US. 
 
Again, I will ask for a comparative analysis between the violent crime rates in New York City, Chicago, L.A. et al ... and Kennesaw, Georgia.
Dino Manalis Added Dec 6, 2018 - 8:35am
 Adequate security with guns is needed in public to keep people safe from criminals!
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 6, 2018 - 8:38am
The conclusing Ward Tipton, of the Harvard study by people that are on your side is simple, “gun don’t kill people, people do”.  Which means that what is except able practices determine the choice people make to kill another person. 
 
This reaches down to neighborhood.  In Chicago Mayor Emmanuel said he was happy that the high murder rate is contained in a few neighborhoods.   In effect he gave permission with that statement.
 
Obama gave permission to to shoot policemen and riot.  DIM controlled cities and Universities have given permission for Antifa to terrorize and destroy statues. The DIMMS and even the white citizens of the southern states gave permission for KKK to kill blacks and gave permission to dismiss the words of black citizens. 
 
Simply when a nation make the application of laws arbitrary, at the whim of state.  The criminals notice and also treat the laws as arbitrary.   That explains Russia.
Dale Ruff Added Dec 6, 2018 - 10:24am
Ward, you are spreading misinformation:  The UK has a gun murder rate 99% lower than the US and a murder rate 80% lower.  Violent crimes ranges from pushing someone to killing them, but  clearly, comparing them is apples to oranges.
Also the metrics in the UK  are different:  in the US, a violent crime is not recorded unless the police investigate and determine such a crime was committed; in the UK, if you call in and say your  wife pushed you, it is recorded.
 
In Australia, the rate of murder has fallen 50%, gun murders by 60% since the 96 laws were passed, the US has 6 times more violent gun crimes than Australia, and the US has 4r times more murders  than Australia and an equal rate of rapes.  The overall crime rate in the US is 21% higher than in Australia. 
 
The number of assaults (without guns is the same for both nations. 
Conclusion:  serious violent crimes like murder are much higher in the US, with rapes and assaults about the same.  The only way to conclude that Australia has more violent crimes is to ignore the murder rates and  and even then, the assault and rape rates are about equal.(source:  https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime)
 
Clearly a nation with 4 times more murders is NOT more violent, unless you equate pushing with killing, and even then, the evidence is that assault rates are the same.
 
As for Chicago, it ranks 24th as the most violent city in the US in two rankings based on violent crimes.  
 
As forthe the UK, in 2016, the US had 15,500 gun murders and the UK had 17.   Anyone arguing the UK is moreviolent  is in deep denial.  Here is the critique of Daniel Bier: "
"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "
Once you know this, Bier wrote, "it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the U.S. and the U.K. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes.
"United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they've been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales."  plitifact
 
You have been duped by blogger's like this: "There are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States."
 
Politifact consulted several experts and did their own comparisons and concluded the statement is false, based on the evidence.
 
To claim that a nation with 99% fewer gun murders and 80% fewer overall murders and 50% fewer  rapes (using rates, not total numbers, of course) is 400% more violent is not only absurd, it is a lie.
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 11:07am
"Ward, you are spreading misinformation:  The UK has a gun murder rate 99% lower than the US and a murder rate 80% lower.  Violent crimes ranges from pushing someone to killing them, but  clearly, comparing them is apples to oranges."
 
You should contact the Australian and British authorities, because theirs are the numbers I used in the comparison. Violent crimes such as home invasions, rapes, strong-arm assaults ... all substantially higher ... do you want to ban butter knives in the US to feel safer too? They are trying to do that in the UK ... but I am sure because the numbers are so much lower than those in the US ... but much more appalling to the more refined and classy Brits in your world? 
 
When you move in to the actual numbers from government recorded data, let me know please. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 11:09am
PS - Since 96 I think it was ... though it may have been later, if police in the US respond to a "domestic" and someone has a bruise, even if it is unrelated, they are required to take the other party to jail. My wife stripped naked trying to find any mark the police could use ... they helped me load my gun cabinet and my ammo into my truck. ;) 
A. Jones Added Dec 6, 2018 - 11:35am
all have 99.9% lower gun murder rates than the US.
 
They all had significantly lower gun murder rates even before their bans on private ownership of firearms; therefore, the ban had absolutely nothing to do with difference with the US. And what you're failing to mention is that after the bans, they all had increases in the total rates of violent crimes, including rapes, assaults, knifings, battery, etc. Per capita, the UK is far more total violent crime than does the U.S. — and much of that difference can be dated to the UK's ban on firearms. By comparison, the rate of all violent crime in the U.S. has steadily been decreasing for the past 30 years . . . the same time period that total private ownership of firearms has greatly increased.
 
At the start of the 20th century, when any adult private citizen of the UK could walk into a store and purchase a rifle or pistol with little documentation and state regulation, the UK still had significantly lower rates of gun murders than did the U.S. at the same time period. The reason is easy to understand if you put aside your love of government regulation as being the "solution" to every possible social problem:
 
Just as individuals are different from one another, cultures are different from one another, too. The UK is simply a less violent culture than the U.S. Period.
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 6, 2018 - 1:03pm
 
The U.K. has far more violent crimes than the U.S.A.? Really?
 
Violent crime definition in the U.K.:

“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1
 
Violent crime definition in the USA:

“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.”   (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)

Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 6, 2018 - 1:07pm
Source: https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
 
Seriously...when was the last mass shooting, mass murder, international incident provoking incident with tourists in the U.K.?
 
It's quiet regular that British tourists go to a major American city like Miami, get on the bus, stay on it too long, end up in a bad neighborhood walking around and get shot point back in the chest or head. The British press covers this stuff. You probably don't hear about it.

Or Australian univeristy student in Missouri who played Division 1 sports I believe rode his bike into wrong neighborhood, shot in chest, dead.
 
How often do you read stories like that where American tourists get killed in the U.K.? (Or raped, or 'violently assaulted'.)? Never? Because it's so dangerous?
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 6, 2018 - 1:11pm
For anyone who is desperate, the gun violence in the U.S. is off the charts compared to most other countries.  But according to same statistic, here is the stat, you all wanted to see:
 
"You are thus 1.27x (58.3 / 45.8) more likely to be knifed in the UK than in the US."
 
There. So using the U.K. as a guide, if you ban most guns, the murder rate goes down dramatically, the gun violence rate goes down dramatically, the rate of theft and burglary doesn't change much and the rate of stabbings goes up 27%.
A. Jones Added Dec 6, 2018 - 2:13pm
Violent crime: Is it getting worse?
BBC
 
Part of the confusion no doubt comes from the fact that the police in the UK have routinely been mis-categorizing and mis-reporting violent crimes in the UK for well over a decade:
 
Serious crime misreported by police
Financial Times of London
 
Metropolitan Police amongst 18 forces to have 'under-reported violent crime for 10 years'
The Telegraph
 
This website does an admirable job of clarifying the comparison of violent crimes rates between the UK and the U.S.:

"In the U.S. Blacks are 1/7th the population, but over 1/2 of all our murders, and Latino’s are about the same 15% of the population and are responsible for over half the rest of murders. England has virtually no blacks or latino’s (<3%). So if we correct for those demographic differences (or just compare a subset — the U.S.’s white murder rate to the UK’s white murder rate), we find that in the bright red trend line, that the U.S. has a lower murder rate than the U.K.

In the U.S. we have a lower white murder rate (but higher black murder rate) than the U.K. And white’s in America have higher gun ownership rates than blacks (or than whites in the U.K.) — so we know that gun control doesn’t help murder rates for whites. At least across these two countries. And the reason for differences among blacks in the two countries is easily explained by gang culture in the U.S.
 
But what about violent crime?

• Violent crime is down in the UK, from a peak of 3.8 million to 1.3 million violent crimes last year, so they are trending better... just not as much as we dropped over the same time.

• But remember, that in a country 1/5th our size. 'That means they’re ONLY at about 1,776/100K violent crimes per year, versus the U.S. 466.

• And if you adjust for race/gangs in a few urban areas (like they threw out Scotland/Ireland, and do the same to the worst Democrat controlled cities), or just look at white crime rates, the U.S. drops to about 1/8th of the UK's violent crime rates

• England/Wales rape rate (or attempted) is about 85,000/year (w/another 40K sexual assaults), about the same as ours (1/3rd Sweden’s), but more of theirs are at knifepoint, and they don’t include Scotland or North Ireland (which appears closer to Sweden's rates and puts their rates well over ours).

• They still have, 2.6x more assaults than the US. (Scotland has an astounding 5.7x more than the U.S.), far higher burglaries and robberies, and far far worse with home-invasion type robberies (where armed robbers come in when owners are home and just tie them up and beat them).

• While the UK's total crime rate is about double ours, you have to remember, ours is pooled in a few urban areas w/Gang problems (DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago), their problems are far more widespread -- ours Is lower in most of the nation (geographically) and pooled in a few cities (and most just in a few of the worst / Democrat controlled cities).

Even if you throw out Scotland/Ireland (for no good reason), as some FakeNews places try to do, and you adjust for accounting differences (UK qualifies more things as "violent crimes" than the FBI does) then the UK is only at about 776/100K or still about double ours.
 
Anyone vaguely informed on gun control issues knows is that the U.S. does not have a gun problem.

• Whites and Asian are highly responsible with guns, and have a lower murder rate than almost all of Europe and the OECD countries. We have a very specific problem: democrats, blacks and latino gang-members drag our murder and crime rates averages up.
• The UK has a higher white murder rate, but they use clubs and knives rather than guns. Since I’m pretty sure most people don’t want to be stabbed or beaten to death, the important factor is whether you’re murdered or not (not the tool the murderer uses), right?

Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murdersby knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK
Ward Tipton Added Dec 6, 2018 - 2:14pm
Funny thing you mention there ... in the cities ... and in the "bad part of town" ... but out in the country where the vast majority of the people are armed, things like that rarely ever happen. 
A. Jones Added Dec 6, 2018 - 2:15pm
This website does an admirable job of clarifying the comparison of violent crimes rates between the UK and the U.S.:
 
[continued from above]
 
 
"Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murders by knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK than in the U.S. And that's BEFORE you correct for race and gang crimes.

So in the end, when it comes to trends:

• increasing gun control and taking away gun owners liberty only resulted in higher crimes and murder rates in the UK.

• In the U.S., removing those laws resulted in lowering of crime rates"
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 6, 2018 - 2:26pm
"After murder rate passes NYC, London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for sharper knife control" is the title of an article rel="author">William Cummings, USA TODAY Published 5:23 p.m. ET April 9, 2018.  ""No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."
 
There have been more than 50 homicides in London so far in 2018, and much of the violence is tied to gangs.
 
Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York — which has a population roughly the same size as London — has seen a steady decline in violent crime."
 
 “gun [or knife] don’t kill people, people do”  If you choose to ignore the people and concentrate on statistics on the weapon your missing what is important.  As the modern liberal professors that are on the side of gun restrictions had to admit because that is what the data said is, "Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling: Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. "
 
Two differing facts need to be discuss in terms of how humans reacted and the effect of crime and homicide.
 
So why has the black market for gun ownership exploded in Australia?  Confiscation of guns has resulted in the citizens having more guns.   The answer is personal and family safety.  It is the mirror image reason that MASS MURDERS IN AMERICA ~90% OCCUR IN GUN FREE ZONES!!!!!.   The criminals are not worried about getting return fire and dying before they complete the task at hand in a GUN FREE ZONE .   Citizens realize that the criminals will be less bold when they face an armed citizenship.  Now the state has told them that they have permission to commit a crime because they will not be met by an armed citizen.   Citizen also respond to the permission by taking their safety into their own hands because the state as reneged on protecting them.
 
The price of black market guns have increased in Australia which sends two messages to criminals.  They are more likely to face an armed citizen and they have a higher up front cost, purchasing the gun and bullets.  Less homicides is the human response.
 
Second the decrease in the participation and thus the teaching of Christianity principle if individual responsibility {for salvation if you practice} for facing the consequences that exist in a democratic society is being replaced by the class based socialist religion and society of collective responsibility and facing a foggy collective consequence.    Individual are embolden to especially harm those they see as a lesser class member when they face a collective responsibility not a 100% individual responsibility for their actions.  The article states that gang members are responsible for the murder of other not part of their gang class, all other are lesser humans.
 
Marty Koval Added Dec 6, 2018 - 5:25pm
John R. Lott Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center stated that "most people have a real misunderstanding about how heavily concentrated murders are in the U.S. “You have over half the murders in the United States taking place in 2 percent of the counties.”Many of these counties or cites within the counties have stringent gun laws or ban guns altogether.
 
The American murder carnage” is in the crime-ridden inner cities. The murder data depicts a distinct urban-rural divide in the United States. About 70 percent of the counties, accounting for 20 percent of the U.S. population, had no more than one murder in the last reporting year, with 54 percent of counties experiencing zero murders, the report found.
 
And as other writers pointed out, the vast majority of the gun owners and guns are not in the 5 percent of the counties where the vast amount of gun murders happened. Criminals know that if they go into rural areas or outlining urban areas, they are going to find many residence are armed with hand guns or long guns and are trained to use them in defense. Criminal avoid these areas, because they are afraid to die.
 
There are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, or enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns left over. If guns were the root cause for the murders, why has not the vast majority of America people been murdered??????
 
The evil people, who murder other people will always kill. Take away all the guns and they will turn to other weapons and tools, to continue their killing. They like it, because they are evil.
A. Jones Added Dec 6, 2018 - 7:21pm
Also, see the published research of Gary Kleck (Florida State University) on DGU (Defensive Gun Use), according to which, the great majority of gun use in the U.S. every year is defensive, i.e., the owner displays a firearm to a would-be criminal without firing a shot. Since the gun isn't fired, such defensive uses are not reported to the police and are not recorded as "use of a firearm." The method by which we know about such defensive use is by nationwide surveys.
 
According to Kleck, there are over a million such defensive gun-use instances each year in the U.S. Additionally, Kleck was able to show that in the absence of such defensive gun use (by means of a general ban on guns, for example) there would be a significant rise in crime, especially property crimes (burglary, robbery).
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 6, 2018 - 7:54pm
London in a strange aberration for 2 months this year apparently surpassed NYC (for the same 2 months) for the murder rate. That's strange but when you widen it for the year, it comes out smaller. 
 
So citing that statistic, it's for a statistical aberration across a 2 month period (as I understand it). 
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 6, 2018 - 7:56pm
Mass school shootings don't tend to happen in inner city neighborhoods either. There's about 1 a month of these somewhere in the U.S. 
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 6, 2018 - 7:58pm
How to stop school (and university) shootings? Arm the children? Arm the teachers? 
 
Statistically speaking, you raise the likelihood of gun violence happening to your family by owning a gun in your household. 
Marty Koval Added Dec 6, 2018 - 8:22pm
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, "gun free zones" (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as "soft targets," meaning unprotected and vulnerable.
 
"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, only a little more than 1% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places that were not considered to be a gun-free zone,"reports The Blaze. "In fact, as Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott Jr. noted in October 2015, only two mass shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in an area where citizens were not prohibited from carrying a gun."
 
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990, and it was signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The act was clearly proposed with the intent to prevent mass shootings at such precious areas as schools. But the act, as the statistic proves, did not result in the desired outcome.
 
While mass shootings are a complex issue with more than one action needed to prevent them, it seems unclear why gun control advocates would hold so tight to their well-intended, but ultimately dangerous "gun free zones" even in the face of such a staggering reality. Why is it kosher to protect our politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and federal currency with guns, but not our children?
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 6, 2018 - 8:40pm
I have heard this crap before <<"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, only a little more than 1% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places that were not considered to be a gun-free zone,"reports >>   The definition that this group for mass public shooting is where more then one person is shot, a mass of two or more.  If I recall the comment that caused me to do a web search.   So please provide the article source citation.  This what i found and sorry but didn't record the web page as I usually do, however; I have included the citations within it.
 
"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-forgun-
safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/), from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred on gunfree zones, with just 1.6% occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.
 
The research was actually updated from a previous figure in response to an article written by the gun-control advocacy group Everytown.org
(http://everytownresearch.org/the-gun-lobbys-false-claims-about-gun-free-zones/),
which attempted to dismiss the CPRC’s research, saying “the gun lobby’s claims that so-called “gun-free zones” endanger Americans are inconsistent with evidence.” The CPRC says that Everytown.org used both incomplete information, and used criteria that falls outside of what the FBI considers as qualifications for mass shootings. 
 
The CPRC dismisses claims of “mass shootings” if they do not meet the FBI’s criteria, and gives an entire list of mass shootings that have occurred within the United States. It then debunks Everytown.org’s claims.
 
The FBI definition of mass public shootings excludes “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf)”
or that were part of some other crime. The FBI also defines “public” places as “includ[ing] commercial areas (divided into malls, businesses open to pedestrian traffic, and businesses closed to pedestrian traffic), educational environments (divided into schools [pre-kindergarten through 12th grade] and IHEs), open spaces, government properties (divided into military and other government properties), houses of worship, and health care facilities. (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-
_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf)”
 
To see the list for yourself, follow the link here (http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gunsafety-
on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/).
 
citation  Title: Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
Jan 9, 2017 8:39 pm
Brandon Morse
(http://www.theblaze.com/author/bmorse/)
Gerrilea Added Dec 7, 2018 - 12:55am
Dale R & Cullen K-- Gentlemen, if I may be so bold to assume your gender.
 
Gun control and the fictitious "gun crime" statistics are Orwellian Propaganda and doublespeak.
 
Kennesaw, Georgia.  Google it.
 
You both present circular arguments.  If you have more of something, sure there will be more "incidents" with said.  The reverse is also true. This does not help formulate legitimate Constitutional policy that will save more lives.
 
What gets lost in translation is the "crimes" themselves.  It matters how each society defines said.  What we do not consider a crime, the UK and the Commonwealth does.  By that standard, their crime rates are significantly higher than ours.
 
A. Jones does a marvelous job pointing to the fraud the Met Office has engaged in for years, Under-reporting and lying about the race or ethnic background of the perpetrators.
 
If the goal is to stop only one "type" of crime you ignore the positive things governments can do to reduce the human proclivity to violence.  When you focus solely on "gun crime" you allow thousands of lives to be lost because of your "precious".  Hell, even the Liberal "torch-bearer", Bill Clinton warned our Democrats to drop "gun control".
 
He went on to suggest they "democratize" and help the millions we can through positive policy choices. 
 
History establishes one thing, here in the US, you will NEVER get the guns, don't even try...We Will Vote You Out Of Office. And in 2012 & 2014 we did just that. Republicans controlled more seats at every level of our government (collectively) than they had in over a century.
 
Maybe your "open borders", "gun control" and "free trade" isn't conductive to a peaceful society, just maybe. Why are the French burning their country to the ground, as we speak?  A fuel tax to support immigrants.  SOMEBODY has to pay for them.
 
Why did the majority in the UK vote for Brexit? 
 
What policy initiatives do you present us to reduce violence of all types?
 
And not just your pet-peeve this week?
 
 
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 7, 2018 - 6:07am
I'm not in favor of open borders and think "free trade" needs to be controlled. If trade gets too slanted in favor of one country, slapping some minor tariffs on goods is fine if you ask me. 
 
Watch the documentary "Murder in Milwaukee" by the BBC. Milwaukee is my home town and it's a war zone in some neighborhoods. It was shocking and depressing to watch.  
 
How many people have to die? Obama proposed some commonsense legislation to track how criminals get guns (federal database of guns and owners). And everyone cried "they want to come for our guns". 
 
School shooting after school shooting. Not a peep from Republicans. Arm the teachers they say. 
 
 
If some cops are too chicken to rush into a building with a well armed attacker, you expect teachers to turn into Rambo? 
Gerrilea Added Dec 7, 2018 - 7:01am
Cullen K--- I don't buy into emotional arguments. Ask how the Germans disarmed their people...through a federal database created by IBM.
 
It's gone beyond "reasonable".  NYS has a bill that is now in our Senate that requires all gun owners to provide passwords and ID's for all social media accounts.
 
It's not about saving lives. 196,000 people die each year from poverty, in this nation alone BECAUSE of the policies our "two-party" system has put into place.
 
The next question that must be asked, why are they so desperate to get the guns?  Are they planning a total economic collapse beyond the Great Depression? Are they aware of some natural disaster that is about to occur?
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 7, 2018 - 8:24am
A CCW holder is, by necessity, among the most law-abiding of citizens. Why should they be punished and denied the right of self defense because criminals commit criminal acts? 
Marty Koval Added Dec 7, 2018 - 8:31am
Cullen Kehoe:
 
School gun deaths and injuries in America between 1900 to 1959 was 10.8 and 5.3 respectively per decade. Then it stated to accelerate in the 1960's, with every preceding decade increasing over the previous decade.
 
In the 1990's, the Gun-Free School Zones Act went into effect. School murders increased by 55% over the 1980's. Instead of making schools safer, gun free zones have become a magnet to draw evil people who want to kill and maim.
 
The government's ill advised laws and court decisions are major contributors to these increased school deaths. Refer to the article I posted on November 23, titled Historical School Gun Deaths and Injuries for more information.
A. Jones Added Dec 7, 2018 - 9:27am
and think "free trade" needs to be controlled.
 
Then by definition it isn't free. To speak of a "controlled free trade" is to speak of an "unfree free trade"; i.e., it's a simple contradiction. Allowing contradictions to contaminate one's thinking does nothing but lead to denial and compartmentalization. That might account for your confusion on this issue.
 
If trade gets too slanted in favor of one country,
 
That obviously cannot occur when trade is completely free. It's only when trade is regulated — when it's unfree — that benefits can be slanted toward one party rather than both parties.
 
slapping some minor tariffs on goods is fine
 
What is a "minor" tariff? No treatise on economics defines such a term. There are either "tariffs" or "no tariffs". In any case, tariffs cannot benefit an entire nation. The most they can do is benefit one particular sector in a nation's economy — a sector that does a lot of exporting — at the expense of all the other sectors in the same nation. There is absolutely zero doubt about that.
 
At best, therefore, a tariff (even a "minor" one) is zero-sum for a nation's economy as a whole. At worst, it hurts consumers who are looking for the lowest possible price of a good they desire, as well as hurting marginal businesses (most often startups) in the same nation, since they, too, are looking for the lowest possible price for goods they need as inputs for their own products. Thanks to tariffs, marginal businesses are no longer profitable and go out of business entirely.
A. Jones Added Dec 7, 2018 - 9:33am
Statistically speaking, you raise the likelihood of gun violence happening to your family by owning a gun in your household. 
 
Statistically speaking, you raise the likelihood of stopping violent crime against yourself, your family, your home, your business, and your property, by owning a gun. See the published work of Gary Kleck (Florida State University).
 
It is certainly true, however, that statistically speaking, you raise the likelihood of death from stabbing by owning steak knives in your household. You also raise the likelihood of death from assault-&-battery by owning any heavy, solid objects like chairs, tables, lamps, and the extremely dangerous "baseball bat."
 
I'm for "common sense regulation" of baseball bats, including background checks. You are, too, I suppose.
Rusty Smith Added Dec 7, 2018 - 11:03am
Dale Ruff  I'm glad you are at least trying to interpret real statistics, I like to think I do that too.
 
Unfortunately correlations and causes are often not the same and in your example of Australia I like to stick to HOMICIDES per year because they are easy to quantify, not debatable about which ones to count and not as influenced by individual events as shorter periods of time.
 
If you look at yearly homicide rates per 100K people over lots of years in most countries including the UK and Australia you will notice they jump up and down naturally even when nothing was done, but generally don't seem to have strong long term correlations between the number of guns private people own and how many people kill each other, (homicides).  That is because people tend to kill each other just as often with and without guns, and the same goes for suicides.  Here is a link to a chart that shows the long term homicide rates for many nations:
 
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Famp.businessinsider.com%2Fimages%2F5463783b6da811d82983136a-750-477.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fus-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11&docid=P9Dc8gjc-_0RAM&tbnid=5s9QaHAlAsDFQM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjj-Nvtho7fAhXKg1QKHeGdAMUQMwhDKAQwBA..i&w=750&h=477&bih=719&biw=1016&q=australia%20homicides%20per%20year%20chart&ved=0ahUKEwjj-Nvtho7fAhXKg1QKHeGdAMUQMwhDKAQwBA&iact=mrc&uact=8
 
Using shorter term statistics is very difficult because the numbers do fluctuate even during years when the number of guns and gun laws didn't change at all.  That often makes it easy for people to cherry pick time periods that suit their purposes.
 
Counting "gun deaths", is even more absurd, since they are certain to go down when guns become unavailable, but that is meaningless if criminals just switch to different weapons, like has happened in the UK.  Homicide rates have risen there so much that they are higher than in New York, despite them taking all the guns.  Criminals just switched to knives, and the government reports the most common knives carried by criminals today, are kitchen knives.  Yes gun deaths are way down, but homicides are not.
 
You also have to be careful about what is counted by definition.  People who want to build up the count will count criminals killed by police, and even suicides.  When they talk about children killed, many studies count kids up to the age of 17 and sometimes even 21.  Some of the "kids" could be policemen.
 
My conclusion based on the numbers is that the overwhelming factor in homicides is CULTURE, not the number of guns that ordinary citizens have.  That explains why homocide rates in some parts of the US where guns are extremelly abundant are lower than other parts just a short drive away, where the laws and gun availability are no different.
 
Japan has super high suicide rates compared to the US and no guns.  I would never suggest we give them more guns to lower the suicide rate, because that difference, (fewer guns), must be why the suicide rates are different.  The same applies to guns, Japan's culture is more peaceful and that's why they have lower homicide rates, not because they have fewer guns.
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 8, 2018 - 4:13am
"...why are they so desperate to get the guns?" 
 
Because you have an ever-growing pile of dead bodies of children trying to go to school. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 8, 2018 - 4:37am
Let's get rid of the guns ... by sending the government we do not trust ... armed with guns we do not want ... to infringe on the God-given right of law abiding citizens who have committed no crime, to stop criminals who do not obey the twenty thousand plus gun laws currently on the books? 
 
Makes perfect sense. What could possibly go wrong? Let's make sure to ban those scary black kitchen knives like they are doing in the UK too ... and baseball bats ... and hey, did you know over one hundred and twenty thousand people per year die from properly ingested prescription meds? Maybe we should punish the people that do not die by taking medication away from everyone? How about texting and driving? Let's ban cell phones and cars while we are at it! Punish the law abiding for the acts of the criminals! That's what we need to do!
 
Now. You want reductions in gun crimes? Life sentencing? Death penalty? Must be a criminal action however, and not just "he-said/she-said" ... not that we are killing Americans merely because "he-said/she-said" ... oh wait ... but ... that is the guys coming for the guns because of "anonymous tipsters" claiming the person is a threat and crazy ... because they believe they have a need ... and dare to say ... even a right to own a firearm for self defense. 
 
"Maryland Governor Hogan disregarded veto requests and signed “red flag” bill (HB 1302) in Spring of 2018. Under that bill as it became law, virtually anyone can ask a law enforcement officer to file an ex parte petition with a state district court judge or commissioner and allege that the gun owner poses an immediate danger to himself/herself or others because (and only because) he or she possesses firearms. If the court issues the order, the police can show up on the doorstep and seize the person’s firearms without notice or warning."
 
Dan Shaver meanwhile, was unavailable for comment, as he was already dead from five rounds fired by MESA Law Enforcement while he was trying to get up on his knees while lying in a prone position with his hands in the air ... pissing his pants scared, crying and trying to follow contradictory police orders while drunk ... and did I mention pissing his pants scared ... but no worries, as the cops investigated the cops and discovered that the cops did nothing wrong. 
 
Perhaps if LE were held even to the same standards as the citizen population, we may feel safer trusting only them with firearms, but ... still not going to be very popular for people like me who live in rural counties where Emergency response is often an hour or more away.