Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 17-04-2008, 12:39 PM
Tannehill's Avatar
Tannehill
Registered User

Tannehill is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson, before that Wisconsin, before...
Posts: 231
I'm the first to agree with the 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' quote of Benjamin Disraeli.

Shootings and gun-related deaths are very much concentrated in the major urban areas; there less in the 'heartland' of rural America on a per capita basis. Yes, much of the urban violence may be criminal-on-criminal, but that's hard to define. I'd rather they go at it with knives and/or harsh language....

I lived in Mel for a year, and awhile back a comparable US city with roughly similar economic vitality and population. Maybe the US news reports more and the Oz news agencies choose not to report them, but shootings and a death occured almost daily in the US city, often mentioned in passing by the anchorpersons. A shooting related death in Mel seemed a fairly uncommon event and cause for a cut to a talking head reporting from the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

This is secondary to the issue of 'rights' to carry weapons. We are of two different cultures in this discussion, clearly. We all agree that we love the sky, though, and let's keep that grounded in our minds; we are brothers!(sorry, sisters too...sexist pig comment, that was, eh? sorry...)

I spent some time searching for statistically valid evidence that increasing gun ownership within the citizenry decreased the crime rate or murder rate. I cannot find the reference the prior poster made about Texas. Can someone find it for me?

Trained police officers in crisis situations rarely hit their targets more than 30% of the time. Usually less, actually. My wife was a cop for two years. They practiced daily. She could shoot the eyes out of a man target at 40 meters with her Lady Browning. (I can still dust her on video games, tho, being less concerned about wounding the odd virtual civilian!) And a gun carrying (sure, trained, practiced, fine-whatever) civilian is going to do better in such a crisis situation?

CHeers

SCott
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 17-04-2008, 05:26 PM
GrahamL's Avatar
GrahamL
pro lumen

GrahamL is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ballina
Posts: 3,265
I wonder If the politicians proposeing this would be equally happy with
members of the public (liscenced of course) entering there respective
houses of legistlature with concealed firearms having a wander ,and
maybe takeing a seat in the public gallery ?

a good read
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/12/gunstudy.html
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17-04-2008, 06:02 PM
DARKMATTER's Avatar
DARKMATTER
New Guy..

DARKMATTER is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central Coast NSW
Posts: 27
Interesting debate.

Never really thought much about being pro firearms, generally against them.
But what if carrying was not concealed but on "show".
Do you think this might make someone less likely to try and intimidate someone else with a firearm?

Food for thought?

I'd personally love a world without them but I am reallistic. They are available and the bad guy generally will have one. What to do?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 22-04-2008, 01:06 PM
Tannehill's Avatar
Tannehill
Registered User

Tannehill is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson, before that Wisconsin, before...
Posts: 231
Lasers in NSW and Gun Control in the US

Just reading about the NSW prohibition on lasers, now. Interesting how that'll play out in terms of astronomy use.

Most states here allow non-concealed carry except in certain areas (around schools, in many public and private buildings, hospitals,etc) provided the owner has a permit. Carriers can be arrested for "disturbing the peace" by aggressive law enforcement, but that rarely sticks. We had a militia group here in Wisconsin years back that would dispense its members to the local malls to walk around with guns on their hips as a gesture of gun ownership pride. Scared the crap outa the moms walking with their kids....

Interesting data from the FBI (Newspaper: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) Of the 10,177 homicides that involved guns in 2006, the FBI concluded that 195, or 1.9 percent of them, were classified as "justifiable" - shooting of a criminal by a private citizen in self-defense. [source: The Week, April 25, 2008, Vol 8 Issue 358] Sure, the FBI here can decide how to define such, but it's food for thought. This phenomenon of guns in private hands being a major source of "hero-in-white-hat" deeds and keeping the criminals at bay isn't easily proven by the available data.

Again, a separate issue from whether it is a 'right' to possess and carry a gun. That I leave to our courts. But the urban legend above is what I take issue with....

Regards

Scott

Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMATTER View Post
Interesting debate.

Never really thought much about being pro firearms, generally against them.
But what if carrying was not concealed but on "show".
Do you think this might make someone less likely to try and intimidate someone else with a firearm?

Food for thought?

I'd personally love a world without them but I am reallistic. They are available and the bad guy generally will have one. What to do?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 22-04-2008, 01:24 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
I heard about that .... absolutely crazy .

Why would anyone want to live in such a country ?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 22-04-2008, 04:42 PM
Cerberus
Registered User

Cerberus is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 32
i kind of agree with the article, the unlikely threat of one crazy gunman is a lower risk than having a lot of people carrying concealed weapons in the hope of repelling that off chance attack, there are simply too many variables, however try telling that to the victim's families, do you think they would advocate this ccw program? also keep in mind these killing sprees might be few and far between but when they do happen a lot of people are killed and maimed for life, so the question is, where do you draw this line of risk taking?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 22-04-2008, 08:30 PM
OneOfOne's Avatar
OneOfOne (Trevor)
Meteor & fossil collector

OneOfOne is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bentleigh
Posts: 1,386
Here in Melbourne at the weekend a guy fired one bullet at a car, didn't hit anyone. Tonight a guy was under arrest... The news and papers were alive with the news, I dare say it was on all the interstate news broadcasts too...am I correct?

Do you imagine this even making it to the local paper in the US? I think this only shows how complacent people have become in a country where shootings seem to be a regular part of the news. Here it is such a rare event that it gets everyone talking about it. I can assure you that if I need to go to Chapel St at the weekend, it is not going to make me think "I'd better take a gun in case..if I had a gun with me last weekend, I could have fired back at that guy before he even had a chance to take his shot (hmmm, maybe I will become famous and get on Oprah)". I have yet to be fired at or be close to anything where I may even consider having a gun may have been a good idea.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement