I didn't address it sweetheart because I assumed you had the ability to figure it out. It seems I misjudged you. An increase in homicides and robberies is not directly attributed or caused by Australia's gun laws.
What evidence can you provide to demonstrate that the increase in homicide and robberies is NOT directly attributed/caused by Australia's gun laws? He who asserts must prove, and I'd love to see you this back up. Remember... sniff sniff: I smell a correlation. After institution of these new gun laws, homicide and armed robbery increased. So obviously, institution of harsher gun laws increases the rate of homicides and armed robbery.
Now, unless you have some proof that gun restrictions somehow equals more homicides and robberies in Australia, your point is quite moot.
STOP THE PRESS!
Did you just admit that an apparent correlation does not necessarily = causation?
(By the way, I hope you know the difference between correlation and causation. Two events may apparently be correlated, yet that does not mean that one causes the other).
But from what I quoted above, I'm assuming that you admit that correlation does not necessarily = causation. No doubt you are now going to remain consistent, and admit that a decrease in firearm violence after the implementation of new gun laws is not evidence that this decrease in gun violence is directly attributed/ caused by those gun laws? You're also going to admit that simply because we haven't had a shooting spree for a mere 6 years, isn't evidence that the laws implemented are responsible for preventing shooting sprees.
After all, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
On the contrary, if guns were more widely available in Australia, there would most probably be more
homicides and robberies, not less.
Speculation, and given that there are many experts who disagree with you, I'd say that the jury is still out on this matter. However, common sense tells me that criminals who suspect that their potential victim is armed will be more reluctant to rob them.
Again, it wasn't a carjacking. Don't you even read your own links?
My mistake.
So the shooter pulled a gun simply because two men came to assist the woman. Since assisting the woman made the situation infinitely worse, perhaps we should legislate against bystanders intervening to defend others. No doubt that would have prevented unnecessary deaths in this instance.
And I stand by my statement that if any one of his victims had a gun, they most likely could have ended the situation in a fashion more favourable to them.
So how exactly would this situation have been made better with guns? She pull the gun on him in the cab? The two bystanders approach with guns drawn, ordering her away from the distressed woman? Can you see now what I was getting at?
Once the victims saw him draw, they could at least attempt to draw their own weapons and fight back. This is all hypothetical, of course, they might be too slow on the mark. But at least they would have had a fighting chance, instead of being sitting ducks. I hold to the philosophy that if the attacker has a gun, my chances of survival increase if I'm armed.
Domestic violence would be a bigger issue if there were firearms in the house, for example.
Conjecture.
And yes, I believe I did address your observation about toy guns. Do I think it's gone too far? Maybe.
Maybe? I sort of expected and empathatic 'YES!'.
But the fact of the matter is we have had incidents where toy guns were pulled on police. Toy guns have also been used in robberies. The police demanded that such toy imitation guns not be made available. Hence why they were pulled from the market.
But as I keep pointing out, you can use almost any weapon to commit a robbery. So if you're going to ban and tightly legislate against toy/replica guns because of their potential to commit robberies, you'd need to legislate against axes, machetes, knives, syringes, and a myraid of other of objects.
As for weapons like axes, they are not more deadly than a single-shot pistol.
No way. A single shot pistol from the sixteen hundreds is less dangerous than a fire axe. I'd consider my chances of survival higher if someone came at me with a shitty single shot antique pistol than a fire axe. And personally, I'd rather be shot than have hunks of my flesh literally hacked off.
My apologies MH. Sick child takes precedence.
That's OK, Bells. We had a total 14 hour drive to attend my Uncle's funeral. My previous post was typed at 5:30 in the morning, heh.
Knives are regulated in this country. It is illegal to own or buy certain types of knives. And if you are spotted walking around with a machete or a knife in a public place, you can be arrested.
Yet you can purchase many knives which are capable of doing grievious harm, without declaring intent. And yes, you can't carry around a machete in public, but machetes don't come even close to being as tightly regulated as single shot 16th century pistols. You don't need a collector's license, you don't need to declare intent, you don't need to lock it in a safe, you don't need a background check.
Same with a gun. If you are spotted walking around with a gun, you'll probably be stopped by the police. As goes for a syringe or machete, or an axe.
If you are spotting walking around with a tire iron or iron rod, you'd probably be stopped by the police. That's irrelevant to the observation that tire irons, syringes, machetes, axes, syringes etc. don't even come close to be as legislated against as real or replica guns.I find this inconsistent, Bells. Why don't you? :shrug: Can't you see that guns, both real and fake, are the bogey man of Australian society? I see past the hype and fear mongering, why don't you?
I think I could tell the difference between a hard metal object and a finger. I doubt they make spongy guns.
I think I couldn't, and I doubt many Australians could. Maybe you are exceptional, but if I felt something poking into my back and the attackers screamed he had a gun, I'm hardly going to risk testing to see if it is indeed a gun.
If you can't tell the difference between a finger and a gun, then you have issues MH. Another hard object like a thin piece of pipe, yes, then I'd agree with you, it would be hard to tell the difference. But a finger? Dude..
Two fingers.
But wait... you admit that even a thin piece of pipe can be used in a robbery? So why don't we legislate against pieces of pipe?
All this demonstrates to me is that if someone wants to commit a robbery, they will use whatever object is available to them as a weapon/imitation weapon, from toy guns, axes, syringes, to pieces of pipe and there own fingers! And the same goes for serial killers and psychopaths. Witness the murder in NSW which occurred just yesterday (?), where an elderly man hacked three of his family members to death with an axe, and wounded the fourth.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/30/2290277.htm?site=riverina
You referred to farmers above.. those who live in highly remote regions. If your parents wish to apply for a firearms license for shooting game or sick livestock for example, they may be able to acquire one. You can always ask at your local police station.
What on earth? You're doing an Orleander, Bells. While farmers are definitely live in rural and remote areas, farmers aren't the ONLY people who live in such environments. For example, the Aboriginals up North live in remote areas, yet they definitely aren't farmers. I live in a country area, but not on a farm. Most citizens in a small country towns aren't farmers.
Again, I repeat: RURAL/REMOTE =/= (ie. does not equal) FARMERS. In otherwords, non-farmers who live in these areas can't purchase firearms, as self-defense isn't a valid reason for firearm purchase.
I'm going to summarize my points, Bells, because apparently a couple of them are flying right over your head.
1. A decrease in gun violence, or an absence of a shooting spree in 6 years is not evidence that the gun laws instituted have been successful, as an apparent correlation does not automatically imply causation.
This is evidenced by the fact that robberies and homicides have increased in response to these laws, and that no shooting sprees occurred for nine years in the ABSENCE of these laws.
2. In general, an armed potential victim has a better chance of survival against an armed attacker than an unarmed victim. Also, armed citizens are more of a deterrant for criminals than unarmed citizens.
3. Using the argument 'Well, they can be used in robberies' to justify the excessive and disproportionate legislation against guns (including toy and replicas) is bogus, in light of the fact that a myriad of objects can be used as weapons to perform a robbery, yet these objects are not legislated against to the same extent as guns, even guns which can't fire (toy guns, replicas).
4. Laws prohibiting 'conceal and carry' and the acquiring of hand guns for self defense are inherently sexist, as firearms equalize the discrepancy in physical strength between the genders.
5. Laws prohibiting 'conceal and carry' and the acquiring of hand guns for self defense are inherently discriminatory against those in live in rural and remote areas (rural and remote =/= farmers), as citizens who live in these areas are afforded less protection by law enforcement.
