Girl shoots herself with grandma's gun at SC store

[Semental]

See above. The constitution has many times been ammended and some of those rights HAVE been taken away by your own people. I wouldn't mind hearinng an educated respose.

Other than the prohibition of alcohol, what right has been taken away by the Constitution? And just as you have stated, we regained our right to produce and sell alcohol with the 21st Amendment. The Constitution to the best of my knowledge has only given us more rights over time (sometimes explicitly stating out rights that we have always had but were not necessarily able to take advantage of).

And BTW, correlation does not equal causation. There are many other factors that play a part in crime rates than just guns

You are correct; correlation does not always equal causation. However, how exactly do you explain the cause of the escalation of crime in the United Kingdom and in Australia? Has there been a major occurrence in both countries that can explain it other than the ban of private gun ownership?

By the way, many polititians use the old "correlation does not equal causation" response when attempting to deny the existance of global warming.

[ambushed]

Other than the prohibition of alcohol, what right has been taken away by the Constitution? And just as you have stated, we regained our right to produce and sell alcohol with the 21st Amendment. The Constitution to the best of my knowledge has only given us more rights over time (sometimes explicitly stating out rights that we have always had but were not necessarily able to take advantage of).

The entire point I was originally trying to make was the constitution should be held up to the same scrutiny as any other law without being put on a pedestal. Changing it hasn't been uncommon where need was felt despite what a previous poster seemed to think.

You are correct; correlation does not always equal causation. However, how exactly do you explain the cause of the escalation of crime in the United Kingdom and in Australia? Has there been a major occurrence in both countries that can explain it other than the ban of private gun ownership?

By the way, many polititians use the old "correlation does not equal causation" response when attempting to deny the existance of global warming.

Im unsure of the situation in the UK but when you pulled out the claim that crime rates in Australia were escalating I was immediately skeptical. I still can't be bothered doing any kind of depth research into the statistics but I did grab this recent article.

Australia’s urban crime rate is on par with most large cities in the United States that have medium crime rates. Residential burglaries are common throughout Australia and are among the most likely crimes encountered by Australians and foreign residents alike. Some burglars can, at times, be confrontational if they enter an occupied residence. Armed robberies have been reported in the Canberra area as well as throughout Australia. In those cases, the weapon of choice is typically a knife. Although firearms are sometimes used, they are the exception rather than the rule. Australia has extremely restrictive firearms legislation, and purchasing, licensing and storage is very difficult when compared to U.S. standards. Local police have attributed a majority of these burglaries and robberies to the growing problem with methamphetamine (ICE) addiction. Vehicle theft is fairly low throughout the country. However, vehicle theft in the country’s capital, Canberra, has risen 20 percent in recent months. Police attest this rise to numerous high cost vehicles driven by diplomats and Australian government employees. Violent crime in Australia is basically low, with fewer than 100 reported cases of armed robbery, homicide, or sexual assault per 100,000 people nationally. Basic assault statistics are higher, with approximately 700 cases per 100,000 people. Most cases are attributed to fighting and alcohol related incidents. Travelers should exercise the same level of caution and security awareness as they would in any major city in the United States.

Source

With harsh gun control, guns are an uncommon weapon in home invasions. A rise in drug problems being one of those other factors I mentioned. You're going to find it much easier to fend off someone in your house with just a knife than with a firearm. Chance of death is minimised for the intruder and the ones you would be seeking to protect. Violent crime in Australia is generally actually low.

[redfish]

It was written by man and as such should be open to scrutiny like any other law and evolve as necessary to keep with society's trends. It was originally written hundreds of years ago for a time quite different to the one in which we currently live. If it's no longer relevant to the general consensus of society, by all means change it. It's silly to think of a right to bear arms as being on the same level as basic human rights.

What I don't like is when people don't realize the framers wrote the Constitution by studying the governments of history and generalizing laws they believed were universal. Like the idea that different branches of government needed checks and balances. Like the idea that the law should protect the minority.

There's also a similar reason why they put the 2nd amendment in, and it hasn't become obsolete.

The right to bear arms is considered a basic right, because has to do with what the foundation of a legitimate government should be.

[redfish]

I should know more about this as one of my exams next week is about germany history, but I'm pretty sure Germany was a democracy during that time. The Emperor (kaiser) abdicated and fled the country after the first world war, and a new democratic system was put in place (weimar republic). While it is correct that Hitler was made chancellor by the president (not the emperor), that president was elected by the Germany people.

And again while I think you are right that the nazi party never won a fair majority, the nazi party got into a position of power with the formation of a coalition government (during the weimar republic years, coalition governments were common because of proportional representation).

Although what this has to do with the original topic, I have no idea.

You're right I screwed up on that----I haven't read up on it for a while and I got things mixed up---I've read more about Bismarck's rule, and how that effected the following history. Pres. Hindenburg was actually a general army, and was one of those who convinced the Kaiser to resign. The reason generals had so much power in the first place is because Bismarck, under his own rule, gradually manipulated the politics to take power away from the Kaiser, and by the time of WWI, a lot of the government was under the military anyway. People have argued that the political system Bismarck set up in Germany relied on his competence in managing it, and that after he was relieved, nobody who succeeded him was capable of doing the same job.

Either way, I know that the nazi party did enter a coalition government, but that the party had no power even in a coalition government until Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

[ambushed]

^^^ahhh wrong thread firstly

What I don't like is when people don't realize the framers wrote the Constitution by studying the governments of history and generalizing laws they believed were universal. Like the idea that different branches of government needed checks and balances. Like the idea that the law should protect the minority.

There's also a similar reason why they put the 2nd amendment in, and it hasn't become obsolete.

The right to bear arms is considered a basic right, because has to do with what the foundation of a legitimate government should be.

Secondly, you havent actually rebutted anything that you quoted. You're probably right about your first paragraph. But they could only use the observations they had to work with at the time. They couldnt forsee what society would evolve into 230 years down the track. They even knew it would need to evolve as times change. My latter posts in the thread say all this.

The obsolescence of the the second amendment is exactly what is up for debate. Many believe that the arguments to keep it, at least in it's current form, are dwindling rapidly as society has evolved.

And again, to put a right to bear arms on the same level as basic rights as a human is rediculous.

[Semental]

Violent crime in Australia is generally actually low.

Other than this statement, i do not refute your opinion.

However, here are the statistics in one of the articles that i have read:

"The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

[...]

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

[...]

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent."

What i am saying is that the rise is crime may be attributed to the fact that criminals no longer fear being shot since the populace has been disarmed.

No matter what you believe about the alleged rise in crime, what can definately be said is that banning guns has not solved any problems; your crime rates are not declining.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Semental

[redfish]

^^^ahhh wrong thread firstly

Secondly, you havent actually rebutted anything that you quoted. You're probably right about your first paragraph. But they could only use the observations they had to work with at the time. They couldnt forsee what society would evolve into 230 years down the track. They even knew it would need to evolve as times change. My latter posts in the thread say all this.

The obsolescence of the the second amendment is exactly what is up for debate. Many believe that the arguments to keep it, at least in it's current form, are dwindling rapidly as society has evolved.

And again, to put a right to bear arms on the same level as basic rights as a human is rediculous.

Not human rights, civil rights. And I'm not sure what you believe its current form is; most people believe regulations, which have been allowed by the Supreme Court as Constitutional, are acceptable.

[FloatingFatMan]

You are correct; correlation does not always equal causation. However, how exactly do you explain the cause of the escalation of crime in the United Kingdom and in Australia? Has there been a major occurrence in both countries that can explain it other than the ban of private gun ownership?

A large proportion of the increase in violent crime in the UK is attributable to the large increase in eastern europeans over here.

[ambushed]

Other than this statement, i do not refute your opinion.

That statement was pulled directly from the source article I posted and presents statistics to back it up.

What i am saying is that the rise is crime may be attributed to the fact that criminals no longer fear being shot since the populace has been disarmed.

No matter what you believe about the alleged rise in crime, what can definitely be said is that banning guns has not solved any problems; your crime rates are not declining.

You didn't post a source but I would honestly love to know what it's definition of being "victimised by violent crime" is. That is incredibly vague and could include anything as simple as being pushed to the ground in the street. Truly dangerous violent crime like armed robbery, homicide, and sexual assault are low, although it says basic assault (a large portion of those "victimised by violent crime" i would imagine") is higher, of which most stems from alcohol abuse and related aggression (which admittedly is a problem amongst 16-25 year olds here), but serious injury rarely directly results. Im sure the mix of alcohol related aggression and guns would increase the serious end of it all.

The more serious end of the violent crime scale IS lower here. Your own article states that the murder rate is higher in the US despite the fact the populace has access to guns to protect themselves. I would say that is 1 winning point for gun control.

[Semental]

You didn't post a source but I would honestly love to know what it's definition of being "victimised by violent crime" is.

I wrote this quite a few posts back:

Source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=21902

[ambushed]

I wrote this quite a few posts back:

It still didn't explain their definition of "victimised" unfortunately but OK.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

Although that statistics are 10 years old and the article itself is 7, the stats show it did have an impact straight after when the strict laws were enacted in 1996. The article I posted was dated February of this year which says those 4 categories (murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery) are still low.

The only categories still higher are "victimisation", burglaries and auto theft apparently. How much of that could be attributed lack of guns I don't know. Certainly not auto theft since their not carjackings. How many it could be claimed would be prevented for guns I don't know. But there are other factors behind that higher number and cannot be attributed purely to lack of guns. After all despite them they do still exist in the US.

Gun control would appear to have had some effect.

And hell I'd rather be "victimized" than murdered any day of the week. :p

[Semental]

Here are more stats that support my opinion (granted they are from a Conservative website):

?Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Source: http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/t...ralian-gun-ban/

[ambushed]

Here are more stats that support my opinion (granted they are from a Conservative website):

"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Source: http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/t...ralian-gun-ban/

also http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2006/04/austra...me-country.html

Yeah there really is a massive amount of bias in that article but statistics noted. But again they are a decade or more old. I think 12 months isn't nearly enough time to allow to see an accurate impact of any new laws. If i remember correctly the gun buyback program lasted at least that long and that was just the initial step. That point is also made here with more more recent statistics showing massive drops in crime. (yay more statistics!!!)

source

Don Weatherburn, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, also rejects the OECD findings here.

He claimed the report out-of-date and misleading.’Property and violent predatory crime in Australia reached a peak in 2000, due to an epidemic of heroin use that began in the mid-1990s. Since that time, heroin use and heroin-related crime in Australia have fallen sharply. ABS figures show that between 2000 and 2004, the recorded rate of homicide fell 25%, the recorded rate of robbery fell 33%, the recorded rate of burglary fell 33%, the recorded rate of motor vehicle theft fell 40% and the recorded rate of general theft offences fell 23%.’

According to Weatherburn, at present there is no way of knowing how Australia compares with other countries in terms of most categories of crime because the results of the most recent international crime survey have not yet been publicly released. ‘If the OECD wants to make a practice of comparing crime rates across countries, it should do so on the basis of reliable and up-to-date information. Basing claims about crime in Australia in 2006 on information gathered in 2000 unfairly tarnishes Australia’s reputation.’”

We can probably trade these all day just keep the statistics recent to be fair.

Edited June 15, 2008 by ambushed

[Andre S. Veteran]

What I don't like is when people don't realize the framers wrote the Constitution by studying the governments of history and generalizing laws they believed were universal. Like the idea that different branches of government needed checks and balances. Like the idea that the law should protect the minority.

There's also a similar reason why they put the 2nd amendment in, and it hasn't become obsolete.

The right to bear arms is considered a basic right, because has to do with what the foundation of a legitimate government should be.

No, the right to bear arms was added because at that time the American governement was basically pushing colonists in the far-west, inside the autochton territories, and the poor dudes had no choice but to carry a gun on them in case of a - very probable - attack.

We don't live in that epoch anymore. Americans live 150 years in the past, in spite of the example of other nation. The reason given is self-defence, yet nowhere in the modern western world is one more in danger of getting randomly killed.

[Semental]

We don't live in that epoch anymore. Americans live 150 years in the past, in spite of the example of other nation. The reason given is self-defence, yet nowhere in the modern western world is one more in danger of getting randomly killed.

Do you care to back that statement up with some facts?

We can probably trade these all day just keep the statistics recent to be fair.

This is from the Australian Institute of Criminology

I can't really say much about murders, but assaults, sexual assaults, and kidnapping all appear to be increasing, while burglaries appear to have increased wildly but are now decreasing back to pre-ban levels.

Based on these statistics, overall, i would have to say that crime in Australia has increased since the gun ban.

Edit: There is a caveat, though. The sight mentions that the robberies in the state of New South Wales were undercounted prior to 2005.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Semental

[Semental]

Here are some crappy little graphs that i made to illustrate the data more efficiently.

[ambushed]

Do you care to back that statement up with some facts?

This is from the Australian Institute of Criminology

I can't really say much about murders, but assaults, sexual assaults, and kidnapping all appear to be increasing, while burglaries appear to have increased wildly but are now decreasing back to pre-ban levels.

Based on these statistics, overall, i would have to say that crime in Australia has increased since the gun ban.

Edit: There is a caveat, though. The sight mentions that the robberies in the state of New South Wales were undercounted prior to 2005.

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: **** **** ****. Originally i was going to walk away from the debate as I'd rapidly lost the desire to continue this back and forth and it seemed neither iof us were going to change the others mind. But i replied anyway. I spent 30-40 minutes and a page analysing it all my head and raised the point of adjusting the figures for population growth and the ton of associated maths which made all the figures look significantly better and inferred all kinds of relationships between things and comparisons and other stuff but **** **** **** IT i accidentally hit the back button on my mouse and lost it all and have no desire to start the post from scratch.

In the end im gonna leave it all but without conceeding defeat. Good debate and at least it never resorted to petty insults (seems rare here)

sigh........

[redfish]

No, the right to bear arms was added because at that time the American governement was basically pushing colonists in the far-west, inside the autochton territories, and the poor dudes had no choice but to carry a gun on them in case of a - very probable - attack.

We don't live in that epoch anymore. Americans live 150 years in the past, in spite of the example of other nation. The reason given is self-defence, yet nowhere in the modern western world is one more in danger of getting randomly killed.

No actually you can read in their own words why the second amendment exists if you look at the Federalist Papers.