Printable View
Yea, I havent done any research on the subject but seems like a pretty backwards move, there other argument was that a lot of people dont like to cycle because wearing a helmet puts them off......:wtfsmilie: seriously wtf do these people smokeQuote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
And then if we compare Aus to USA.
Numbers are not that important, different societies have different rates, but look at the slope of the line...
Attachment 32803
1980 looks like a great year
Does that not basically mirror the statistics proposed by "wish"? I could imagine that other factors like increasing population and a changing of culture such as a move towards urbanisation and less overall exposure over all to shooting might play a part. It would also be interesting but probably impossible to see who the victims of gun homicide were. Were there more criminals killing each other in previous decades? Have firearm users evolved into a more safety conscious entity resulting in fewer unintentional firearm killings? Has the reduced availability of guns made an impact on overall suicide rates, or just ones involving one specific method (guns)?Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
All questions which are impossible to answer looking at raw numbers.
That is the year I was born, shit got real....Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Beavis, the raw data might be the same, but the interpretation sure as hell is not :D
"Wish" (a anti gun control lobby group by the way), tried to somehow prove that gun deaths in Aus are not decreasing, or that the decrease is not related to legislation implemented in 1996. The way they try to do this is by referring to the "difference" in yearly numbers. All that this proves is that the decrease is roughly linear...
Take a look at the Aus/USA graph. See what happens immediately following 1996 ? Those numbers are per 100k population, and compensate for increases or decreases in population. The anti control groups claim that "gun-crime" is falling in the USA. In my book the most serious consequence of gun crime, gun negligence etc is death. The green line seems to be fairly flat to me...
This is a shit thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree or disagree with the topic being discussed but at least for once it hasn't degenerated into another round of handbags at dawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRADS
@Beavis, in the instance of Australia, I do not think it is necessarily a reduced availability of firearms...it is just that semi-automatic guns are no longer in the mix.
Brads, it might be a shit thread but hey, I find it cool that we can discuss this matter...most of us on here have grown up with guns and learnt from early ages how to use them and how to be safe with them...the psychology of it all is fascinating...shit thread, yes maybe you are right...13 people died on the roads this holiday period...I dont see anyone pushing for vehicles of personal use being banned...kind of ironic, methinks...
An interesting study on the effects of the Australian National Firearms Agreement.
GUN LAWS AND SUDDEN DEATH
Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?
JEANINE BAKER and SAMARA MCPHEDRAN
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40534...aper_40534.pdf
Not sure where you got the statistics regarding the USA but the Berau of Justice Statistics found that firearm homicide decreased by 39% between 1993 and 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Non fatal firearm violence declined by 69% in the same period.
I figure those are pretty significant reductions. Neither pro nor anti gun laws really explain it. It was a pretty tumultuous period politically for firearms.
ebf I apologise I can't seem to find the report of that I had read and what I can find now seems to be from an obscure site with no reliable source whatsoever so I'm going to say it was bogus. But I do agree with what you have said. Gun deaths have declined, gun crime however is probably a different story but as you have mentioned earlier - who really cares?
On the topic of gun control though, which what I'm about to say might be a bit of a downer & I apologise on making a shit thread, even shitter... (We should really all be out shooting as much as poss and talkin about it) But lets be honest here ebf, it's not hard to see where the trends are taking us with gun control. Look at the stringent gun laws for AUS/NZ/UK & some states in the US. In the next 20 or so years where do you see NZ in it? We are unquestionably a guinea pig country and things are gradually tightening with gun control. I say gradual because it's exactly that, we are conforming to a slow process of gradualism.
The politicians along with the gun grabbers all lobby together to form stricter and stricter regulations on firearms. You regulate something and keep regulating it till it becomes redundant, unwanted or just plain useless. Take the "free standing pistol grips" for example?
Anyway, that's it for me rant over. Fire away
Excellent, @Sasquatch...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Not quite sure what you meant but if it's a proposed correlation between deaths and availability, I would say look at us - shit loads of semi's, not much death. Don't think I actually know a FAL holder who doesn't own a semi auto.Quote:
Originally Posted by EeeBees
Just add 1080 then it will be terminated:PQuote:
Originally Posted by BRADS
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it Australia has changed the way it counts gun deaths at some point since the law change and self harm is no longer counted.
How about comparing the trends with another country with a similar culture and gun background as the USA hardly counts, I don't know ,but how about nz-we still have semis so what has our stats done one corrected for the different methodology.
I think the vid is a pile of shit to sway the uniformed, just as some in this thread are making very uninformed comments on a unrelated subject.-let alone the one at hand.
Having a degree in stats I find most of the ones in this thread worthless as presented from there sources, not a comment about those who use them in the thread-they just went looking for something to support there argument-and on the big wide web you can find stats to support anything.
If only 1080 had worked that well on possums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dundee
Threads like this just keep coming up on forums, and tend to make life hard on admin regardless on where they personally stand
I figured the CDC, dept of justice etc would be fairly credible sources. As for Australian gun death...Quote:
Originally Posted by res
Yip.
Try an keep to the original theme[ish] please ladies and gentlemen, or just let it die a natural.
it will die good night forumites:yaeh am not durnk: past my bed time:ORLY:
It would appear to me that the trend was well established long before the aberation of Tasmania and the knee-jerk legislation that resulted. That seems to be well born out by the research paper referenced a couple of posts above.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Yup, the paper that koshogi posted a link to was very interesting reading. Would help the debate a lot if there was more solid research as opposed to little snippits taken out of context just to support a particular side.
and res, yeah stats can be used to prove just about anything :D
i prefer looking at long term graphs for trends. whenever words are attached to it for an interpretation, things can get pretty screwy...
take the 39% drop in homicides "factoid"... the year used as the start of that "fact" was 93, the rate per 100k in US was 7.07 (Krug, E G, K E Powell and L L Dahlberg. 1998. ‘Firearm-Related Deaths in the United States and 35 Other High- and Upper-Middle-Income Countries.’ International Journal of Epidemiology; Table 1 (27), p. 216. Atlanta: National Centre for Injury Prevention & Control, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention / CDC. 16 April.)
but then if you look at this (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co...f_gun_homicide), a picture paints a very different story...
if the link does not work, go to http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states, click on Gun Homicides, and then the chart link next to Rate / 100K.
@ebf Looking at the OZ trend it was and has been clearly declining, so in 1996 there was a small extra dip, then back to long term trend. So really the claim that the 1996 ban achieved a great deal is questionable to say the least in fact its probably negligable.
The thing to do here is look at the actual stats for those 2 or 3 years and determine why. So for instance if the decrease deaths were 90% attributed to suicide by gun but those ppl topped themselves by another method anyway they are still dead just not in the stats for guns "being responsible", ergo the law appears to may have achieved nothing.
The other stat is to put up NZ deaths over the same period to see if there is a correlation, even look at the state of the economy might reveal something. Once done of course it cant be un-done.
=======
edit
=======
In fact if you take 87, 88 and 89 and trend it the decline is pretty close the the 1996-99 ban drop, so what happened in those 3 years?
@ebf I'd be pretty skeptical of any statistics compiled by Alpers. Just as you would rightly be skeptical of the ones presented by WiSH
the chart citation is Alpers, the data it is based on is from the CDC (see earlier reference)
Having read some bits on gunpolicy its pretty clear there is some considerable cherry picking and presenting of data and opinions in an dis-honest manner. For instance claiming that the drop was x3 v before, yes Ok however that effect only lasted 2 or 3 years then it returned to normal decline trend. Good thing for us of course is when non-gun owners bleat such things we as gun owners can counter their fairy tales. This thread has morfed a bit but I for one have learned a few things.
Always be sceptical of any "related death" depending on the data gatherer's particular bent, could mean fell down the stairs and broke a neck and police found a firearm in the house( ridiculous example of course but you get my drift)Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Death by firearm would be a lot more specific.
regardless gents -If you walk round with a dangerous weapon,be it martial art skills .knives a dog(or starved leopard on a bloody short leash)or a loaded firearm -one fact is inescapable -YOU are in control of that weapon- YOU also made a decision as to how it may be packaged in a state of readiness, YOU make the decision to use it.
in accordance with newtons third law _"every action has an opposite equal reaction" if you take your eye off the ball(youre fucking careless) the great shit bombis gonna land squarely on you ,unfortunately often a fatal impact!!
alas ,we in NZ are not immune as we well know,altho thank christ we dont have tragedies of this type very often.still one dead firearms owner or victim is still one too many IMHO.
I disagree with some of this. Anyone can use a knife, dog, or loaded gun, but it doesn't mean they are in control of it. When the chips are down, they will be a danger to guilty and innocent alike because they won't have the skills to use a weapon effectively in a real life, dangerous situation. This is why a combat experience soldier is far more effective than one that has just finished training.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotuku
IMO, a true martial artist (not someone that has done a bit of boxing, kickboxing etc), will have a far greater situational awareness, can react to changing situations, keep focussed enough to 'self coach' under pressure, and most importantly, have an exit strategy. With an advanced level of martial arts skill, people shouldn't be harmed by mistake.
I'd rather not have a starved leopard, 'cause they are a bit bitey scratchy, and even a trained martial artist doesn't want to end up as a pile of cat poo. :(
Most martial arts are rubbish and poorly prepare you for fights out side the dojo.
Care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
boof,bang,the end:):yaeh am not durnk:
It's dancing. When you add stress from a fight you can't remember your dance moves. Cunts use bottles and sticks and shit in real life. I briefly did something that amalgamated karate, some form of Brazilian Jiu jitsu, kick boxing and some other stuff. It was just too much to remember when it came to actually applying it. Half of it seemed useless.
You are dead right. Learn to fight first, then hone your skills in the dojo :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Sure - it's a plethora of different moves and potential situations to use them, unless you're getting jumped every singly day of your life generally have few opportunities to use them. I can't even remember 90% of what I learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
That said, when I trained (ages ago now) it improved my fitness (key in a fight), stamina, accuracy and I learned a bit more about body kinetics. Taking hits during sparring improved defensive work and gives one an idea of their strengths and weaknesses, so it wasn't a complete waste of time IMO.
yukon - my use of control is precisely that be it total control or complete lack of.either way a human decision (conscious /reactive)make the person deploy the weapon- weapons dont usually deploy themselves. The intention to carry a weapon denotes a sense of control.
as psychiatric nurses we unfortunately have to deal with aggression in various degrees quite frequently.a lot is generated by the fear/flight /fight syndrome,engendered by mental illness ,but deliberate provocation is not uncommon with truculent wiseguys and lassies deciding 'no f...ing nurse is telling me what to do."
we undergo a weeks course in calming and restraint-theory &practical skills. beleive me at the end most of your joints ache like 40 ba...ds and you marvel how such small women can inflict such pain on uncooperative large men!(only did that once as i kissed the carpet in the blink of an eye.)this is followed up by yearly refreshers. it is based on modified jujitsu Im told and is certainly bloody effective in safely controlling a situation ,but its intended for a 3 person team at minimum.cops &prison officers have been dumbfounded when we execute this with zero protective gear.urine ,shit ,vomit ,cooked food cups of tea ,blood ,used tampons ....ive sween em all used as weapons in addition to other common things ,and they certainly dont make you attractive in anyway ,but thats humanity for you.
ever see that happen on shortland street -na the only combat there is the implied unsheathing of some donkeys pork sword.
Sad and avoidable... But, I still believe human beings should be allow to carry a concealed firearm with proper training and if they are mentally fit to do so.
I spent 4 weeks in the USA (2 weeks in New York and the other 2 weeks in Texas) a couple of years ago. No matter where I went, I found the American people to be extremely friendly and hospitable. I wouldn't hesitate to go back again and I would recommend anyone go there.
In my opinion, so long as people have proven themselves to be fit and proper people to own firearms, then why should there be any issue owning any type of firearm?
My thoughts on the topic exactly, It is kind of ludicrous that cosmetic features are deemed "scary" by the government, Even though we have to keep firearms concealed anyway whilst they are being transported so no one sees it anyway. I have never once seen an e-cat on the range and felt any differently towards it than I do to a .22 bolt gun.. Never mind feeling "Scared" of one. It is just ignorance. The same people I wouldn't trust with a firearm are the same people I wouldn't trust around a car either, But they can still go and buy a ferrari for their first car if their funds allow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mm-Mag
