we are up against stupidity

It seems to me that we need to show how the statistics relate to us as law abiding hunters and shooters i.e how many of us are responsible for fire arm related death's and incidents - and then how many gang related or criminals involved in violent robbery or homicides those without a FAL what is that statistic - and also include Police accidents with firearms and military and see how those statistics look thats a fair way of looking at it - I will bet we dont look to bad who are the baddys in firearm statistics

Now now no spoiling the narative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No good names left

guns or no guns people will always find a way to kill each other if that's what they want.

---

Truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

Truth

---

as clearly evidenced by knife attack statistics in europe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedrex

according to UNODC data Australia v's NZ stacks up as follows

Location	Region	Subregion	Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants	Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons	Total firearm-related death rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Australia *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

0.9

14.5

0.88

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ealand.svg.png New Zealand *

Oceania

Australia, New Zealand

2.6

26.3

1.24

I'm not for one minute defending Gillespies BS article, just your comment got me curious, the above is from wiki so can't verify it's accuracy

---

Something does not make sense there...If you look at Aussie stats intentional deaths (0.9 per 100,000) and Firearms deaths (0.88 per 100,000) thatis 9 per million and 8.8 per million. So of the intentional deaths 2 per million do not involve firearms? Then look at NZ (2.6 versus 1.24 ) so less than half of our intentional deaths involve firearms. AND the ratio of firearms deaths to ownership is lower in NZ (Aussie is 1 in 16.47 and NZ is 1 in 21.24)

One big question though is does the total deaths by firearm include accidental deaths as it does not specify intentional in the title on that column. I think it would be misleading to add accidental ones in when attempting to compare firearms deaths in relation to murder. For example it could be said that NZ had 2.6 intentional deaths per 100,000 people of which none were committed with firearms and an accidental or self iflicted of 1.24 per 100,000 people which would clearly indicate that laws against crime were working rather than implying the opposite. This situation would tell us we have a problem with safety, education and mental health but would also show crime is being addressed effectively -( Clearly this is not the case but it is something that is possible with those stats..)

As mentioned stats can be twisted to show things that are not true especially if there is something to gain. And lets face it UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) clearly has its own poliical agenda to disarm the general population as a mandate so would never publish information showing it to be wrong...

As for my comparison with Australia, the main point is that with their draconian level anti firearm laws and it being near impossible to get a license there, then there should be almost no gun crime there at all if the laws worked....clearly that is not the case as their Police are armed at all times.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkN

Whilst what I am about to say will be unpopular, c'est la vie....
______

I paraphrase:

If we own and possess the ability to make fire in our backyards for BBQ's and fire pits and incinerators and such, and people across the land, foolishly burn down houses and sometimes kill people by the indiscriminate use of such:

Instead of screaming about our "rights" or "privileges" to continue doing so and opposing any moves by society to reign in the damage and injury cause by such use of fire:

Why don't we come to the party and propose workable and sensible solutions to the problems, instead of bleating loudly on internet forums with all the logic and aforethought of a toddler having his best toy taken away for repair.

______

My solution to this is get down the all the meetings that politicians hold and express a polite and well thought out view point.

______

the play book that goes:

"they are lying". "they are evil"
"what about that person who did something bad?" "leave me alone"
"remember that guy who was innocent"
"what about that time that the (insert authority here) didn't prevent a crime before it happened"
"there're places in the world that are much worse than us"

is the playbook of dolts
______

We'd be better off, if we all tried to work together, not complaining, every time an idea we don't like surfaces.

This is a democracy and if the changes to laws, are something we don't like, there's a polling booth coming up, just around the corner.
______

Lastly - in this world of reality TV, the viewpoints of the Karens and Man-babies in such programmes, is fast becoming the thinking of our younger society.

---

I think your bang on the money, to beat the system, you've got to work WITH it not AGAINST it. You look at America and most non firearms holders think the NRA are a group of right wing gun toting lunatics, in no small part because there spokesmen consistently come across with not much credibility and that doesn't help our cause. To fight fire with fire we need to be able to present consistently accurate and plausible arguments to counter the anti-gun lobby. To my mind that maybe looks like questioning the rhetoric of the likes of Cahill where he makes claims that he can't substantiate and all the others and asking how can 26 known gang members be licensed firearms holders, given that one of the qualifiers for obtaining a FAl is to be a fit and proper person....and I don't see that aligning with gang membership.

My experience of working WITH the system (as in operating at a level they can comprehend rather than just throwing a tanty) stems from many years of being involved with the riders rights movement in UK/Europe in the 90's. So much legislation was stopped in it's tracks by our representatives making reasoned arguments backed up with facts that proved our position and disproved the position of the morons that were trying to insist that motorbikes should be fitted with airbags and leg protectors, to name just a couple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No.3

If I have the right of it, mass killing by definition in aus is 4 killed or more and does not include Govt workers such as Police. That's by any method not just homicide by firearms. They skewed the accounting on it to improve the figures and to my mind it's quite blatant.

If you look back through the Aussie gangland related crime over there, it's heavily populated with targeted assassinations perpetrated with guns. But hey, much safer than NZ...

---

A mass shooting in Aussie is 5 dead not including the shooter. Have a look here and see how many shootings they have had up to 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Percy Jones

A mass shooting in Aussie is 5 dead not including the shooter. Have a look here and see how many shootings they have had up to 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

---

Um, if you look at the numbers in the link you posted it shows the smallest number as 4 dead?

Unsure where the '5 dead' number you quote comes from as there isn't actually a defined number - it is generally considered that it is 'between 3 and 5 dead' and most tally civilians separately to Police, military and other Govt workers (war events like the 200-odd soldiers killed in WWII, and also Aboriginal incidents are not included - documentation reasons for the latter mostly).

What is interesting for the Aussie model is that the Port Arthur law changes are accepted as being the reason for a substantial reduction in the amount of firearms related homicide in Australia but also that the stats are only considered through to 2005 or so. Most studies predate this time period. After this time period it doesn't seem that there are studies? Also, it would seem to me that the stats show an uptick in firearms related multiple casualty events after this period - although without recent studies it is hard to interpret the lists of events...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No.3

Um, if you look at the numbers in the link you posted it shows the smallest number as 4 dead?

Unsure where the '5 dead' number you quote comes from as there isn't actually a defined number - it is generally considered that it is 'between 3 and 5 dead' and most tally civilians separately to Police, military and other Govt workers (war events like the 200-odd soldiers killed in WWII, and also Aboriginal incidents are not included - documentation reasons for the latter mostly).

What is interesting for the Aussie model is that the Port Arthur law changes are accepted as being the reason for a substantial reduction in the amount of firearms related homicide in Australia but also that the stats are only considered through to 2005 or so. Most studies predate this time period. After this time period it doesn't seem that there are studies? Also, it would seem to me that the stats show an uptick in firearms related multiple casualty events after this period - although without recent studies it is hard to interpret the lists of events...

---

It is 4 casualties, excluding the shooter according to the articles criteria.