The NRA together with its more gullible members present a propaganda force as effective as any in these times.
One of their favorite canards is the claim that the murder rate in Australia has gone up since a gun buyback program initiated in 1997.
This claim is not only unfounded based upon the only statistics available, but also irrelevant. Australia claims no constitutional right to own guns and the average Australian citizen has never owned a gun. As a result, it is impossible to correlate any increase or decrease in gun ownership to crime.
What IS true is that armed robberies dropped steadily from 1995 from 28.7% to 14% in 2000.
Of much greater concern to all of us is; how did we get to a point where we allow people to own guns who attempt to argue with a straight face that somehow a country which had 56 gun related murders in 2005, is in any way comparable to the US which over 11,000 gun related murders?
It seems to me these people have no shame (its little wonder they won’t disclose their identities) and are extremely dangerous and should not be allowed to own guns.
Among our species are two types of people. One type is interested in validating group-think by an end result. The other is intellectually curious and more interested in objective, thoughtful examination.
The former unfortunately cannot be embarrassed by being proven wrong because for them, being wrong just means they didn’t try hard enough. They are tenacious even in defeat.
Someday, I will address the claim that England’s gun ban has been the cause of increased crime. But I’ll leave you with a preview. Crime has increased in England. But the claim that this is the result of gun bans is a difficult argument since there are many more powerful factors contributing to crime rates than the more passive influences related to deterrence.
Can any of our Alan Korwin loving, gun lobby freaks name ANY other factors that may influence crime? I won’t hold my breath (ouch).
#1 by Richard Warnick on June 3, 2008 - 7:38 am
From Politico: Why the Gun Lobby Usually Wins. In short, most members of Congress are afraid of the NRA. That includes many Democrats.
#2 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 8:31 am
I think reasons like this are why gun control doesn’t pass
Gun control advocates don’t want to use reason, logic or facts to pass legislation, but use emotion to manipulate people into buying into their agenda.
In spite of a left leaning article, only 3 quotes or mentions by the Republican or anti-gun folks and 9 quotes or mentions by Democrats and anti-freedom folks. Maybe the NRA succeeds in spite of the liberal media.
Maybe the NRA succeeds because not everyone is a member (for the record I am not) but because it matches the values and principles of more Americans than those that want to curtail our rights.
The NRA isn’t a machine, it isn’t a mechanical devices; it is the embodiment of the words written so long ago
WE, THE PEOPLE – that is why it succeeds.
#3 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 9:58 am
Cliff,
I am totally amazed at your verbal judo skills. You can change the question, move the goal posts with the best of them. But this time you have shot your own case in the foot (so to speak).
Remember the original statement you made was
Now you claim
So in a country that
so you say given all this, Gun control still can not be proven effective or not, but wait didn’t Australia buy back guns, confiscate them, outlaw their use to commit crime. So what was the result:
Gun Control is
From the same article
I’ve included those references to show that the laws didn’t not reduce the gun crime or suicide, other factors were already working to reduce those issues.
You don’t have to hold your breath, you just have to learn how to read and comprehend information already posted on your blog. (You really might want to research getting your money back from your schools. The reading and comprehension skills displayed previously do no justices to institutes of higher learning)
From this post
Or this post
>
Same post
Or from someone else
Finally, your own words state the truth, but I wonder if you are too blind to see
That is what I have been saying all along, stop blaming the deterrence and focus on the crimes.
#4 by Richard Warnick on June 3, 2008 - 10:26 am
I was amazed to hear that David Ragsdale’s defense “has blamed the murder on a cocktail of psychiatric drugs he was on.” Well, didn’t his 9 mm pistol have something to do with it? His wife would be alive if all he did was drive to the church parking lot and yell at her. Instead, he shot her 12 times.
#5 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 10:58 am
Richard,
Uh, the answer is NO, the gun didn’t have anything to do with it. It’s inanimate, i.e. not living, not capable of influencing someone.
The murderer did the following actions
1.) retrieve the firearm from a location
2.) exited his location
3.) entered a vehicle
4.) drove through traffic to a destination
5.) exited a vehicle
6.) confronted his wife
7.) pulled a weapon and aimed
8.) pulled the trigger multiple times.
9.) left the location
In which one of these actions did the pistol make the murderer do anything?
Should the car be blamed since it was also used in the commission of a crime? How about the jacket since it hid the weapon as the murderer approached his wife?
No, it is ridiculous to think those inanimate objects had anything to do with the crime.
The murderer clearly had a plan to kill, would it matter if he ran over her with the car or choked her? The woman died because someone, not something, decided to commit a crime.
#6 by Girl Bob on June 3, 2008 - 12:05 pm
Guns are hardly inanimate.
If you were in law enforcement, you would know.
Guns often just go off by themselves according to witnesses.
Don’t be such a dick.
#7 by Richard Warnick on June 3, 2008 - 12:10 pm
My point was, someone on a “cocktail of psychiatric drugs” is a good deal less dangerous without a firearm. Is that hard to understand?
#8 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 12:31 pm
Richard,
Perhaps instead of outlawing guns we should outlaw the use of a “cocktail of psychiatric drugs”? It makes as much or more sense to do that, doesn’t it?
Did the drugs make the murderer drive the car, aim and fire? Nope, no more than the firearm did.
How about answering the question:
#9 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 12:38 pm
GB
From Mirriam Webster Online
Yes, the firearm is inanimate. By definition and reality, it is a formed piece of metal/polymer lacking — consciousness or power of motion.
Right, no one would ever tell a lie to avoid admitting a mistake or accident. I’m glad the owners of those firearms are such a truthful bunch.
Do misfires, mechanical issues ever happen, yes. But aren’t they very rare by comparison to someone making a mistake.
Nice language and use of your vocabulary….are you related to Cliff Lyon?
#10 by Richard Warnick on June 3, 2008 - 1:19 pm
Sure, he could have hit his wife with the car, choked her or done any number of things that were less likely to kill her than 12 shots from a 9 mm pistol. As it was, the incident happened suddenly and no one else had time to react. Do you deny that the murderer was more dangerous armed than unarmed? If so, having a gun must be overrated.
#11 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 1:43 pm
Bob S. says:
Well, I guess we can stop funding the US military through taxes.
#12 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 2:05 pm
Richard,
The murderer planned to commit a crime, the gun didn’t change that other than how quickly it could be done. And even that is debatable, someone can be fatally stabbed in less time than 12 shots could be fired.
You haven’t answered the question, would the wife be any more or less dead if she had been ran over with a car? Stabbed? Or strangled?
Would she have had more or less time to react if he hadn’t had a gun, I don’t know. It depends on her, her frame of mind and reference.
But does it matter in the end if a firearm or car or tennis racket was used?
I say no, she’s dead from a crime he planned to commit.
I think the difference you are trying to reach is it more effective to commit murder with a firearm versus not using a weapon. The answer to that is yes. Freedom is a double edged sword, it allows the just and the unjust to use the tools. Not always will the right or moral decision be made.
#13 by jdberger on June 3, 2008 - 2:08 pm
Bob, this this obviously meant as satire.
#14 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 2:13 pm
Albert,
Richard tried to imply that the firearm made a difference in the murderer’s plans. As if he lacked a firearm the wife would still be alive, I disagreed with that.
Over and over again the murdered made decisions that required conscious thought and action, this clearly seems to be a case of premeditated murder, wouldn’t you agree?
It’s not a bar room brawl that got out of control and someone used a beer mug or a chair to hit someone else. This murderer repeatedly made decision leading up to the murder.
The inanimate was a factor in the efficiency of the murder, the ease of it. I’m not trying to be callous, but it certainly appears he planned to kill her. Do you think he would have stopped because he didn’t have a gun or would he have found another way to kill? I think he would have just used another tool.
Those tax dollars going to the military aren’t being used on self-aware, self programming weapons, but again –get this– inanimate objects used by well trained people. The gun didn’t have anything to do with the decision to murder any more than your car has to do with the decisions of where you drive each day.
#15 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 2:15 pm
JD,
I can see that possibility now.
Of course after dealing with some of the mental giants who favor banning firearms; I’m not sure. It sounds like something many of the anti-freedom folks would say in all seriousness.
#16 by jdberger on June 3, 2008 - 2:25 pm
All we can do is gather empirical evidence that guns are indeed inanimate objects.
It sure helps to keep an eye on them.
#17 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 2:42 pm
Well, nuclear weapons are inanimate objects, too. By the logic I am hearing, we should be allowed to posses those as well.
#18 by Richard Warnick on June 3, 2008 - 2:48 pm
Bob S. convinced me. All you need is a tennis racket, guns and ammo are unnecessary.
#19 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 2:49 pm
Albert,
Would you use a nuclear weapon?
George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands.
#20 by jdberger on June 3, 2008 - 3:23 pm
Cliff? Blatently misrepresenting statistics again?
Really, you should realize, that unlike you, we’ll read your links. See, we are intellectually curious.
Let’s take this one for example:
Where exactly did you get that stat, Cliff? Did you go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics? Or did you just take it from Snopes? Could you please show me where you found this information?
First of all, the Snopes article refers to the “proportion of armed robberies involving firearms”. It says nothing about armed robberies in general (as you falsely assert).
Second, with handguns used in almost 1000 armed robberies in 2003, how’s that gun ban working?
Finally, armed robberies in Australia have increased from 1993-1999 [see summary page], with a corresponding higher chance of injury to the victim.
Of course, I only include these links for the intellectually curious.
#21 by jdberger on June 3, 2008 - 3:29 pm
So’s the moon, Albert. Your ability to be obtuse is truly astounding, sometimes.
How you made the logical leap from “firearm ownership is protected by the 2nd Amendment” to ownership of nuclear weapons baffles me.
Unless, of course you’re talking about the Second Amendment being a “State Right” again. Then your assertion might have some merit.
Waddya think, Cliff? After all the shit you’ve been talking about Alabama, should Alabama have it’s own supply of nukes? Why not? You’ve also asserted that the Second Amendment is there so States can protect themselves from the Federal Government. No?
Or, is your position completely asinine?
#22 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 5:07 pm
jd says:
Really, jd, I simply applied the logic espoused by Bob S. – if it is an inanimate object, then it must be “not living, not capable of influencing someone.”
#23 by John of Manchester on June 3, 2008 - 5:14 pm
Hey, France has nukes, and that makes them good enough for me. Thank God for the Philosophs and in particular Rousseau who defined the social contract. Once it is violated get what you need, and make your enemy scared or gone. There is no limit to what can be had to maintain individual freedoms.
As Rousseau would say, we have no obligation to those that tread tyranny upon us, let them hate us, as long as they FEAR us in our Liberty.
#24 by John of Manchester on June 3, 2008 - 5:34 pm
..and for the record, my inanimate firearm has killed no one, unlike ted kennedys’ rather animated flying car/boat/submarine.
Let’s ban the bastid, and his car! While we’re at it, let’s make him blow into a tube before he votes in the Senate.
#25 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 6:40 pm
JoM:
What’s your point re Kennedy?
Don’t tell me you are one of those losers who raise Chappaquiddick because you cannot find anything wrong with his policies.
#26 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 8:36 pm
Albert,
I’ll answer for John because this is an argument that has been around for a while.
How many people have my firearms or John’s killed? Answer – None
How many people has Kennedy’s flying car/sub killed? One.
Which is more dangerous, our firearms or Kennedy’s car?
The logic you used is very poor.The 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not firearms are inanimate.
I was pointing out the fallacy of the “the gun made he commit the crime”. Even Cliff falls for this– The claim is visible on the home page of OneUtah.
Please explain how an inanimate object committed murder?
#27 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 8:52 pm
Bob:
The answer to your question may be found (or at least assumed) from your own comment. You stated that Ted’s car killed a person. Ted’s car is, like a gun, inanimate.
#28 by VeroFeritas on June 3, 2008 - 8:55 pm
Mr. Lyon,
I am glad one of my fellow NRA sockpuppets / trolls / paid shills pointed me toward your blog. I’m waiting for your upcoming post after the Heller decision to really engage.
I have noticed you have the most profanity, insult and “I know you are but what am I” of any left wing anti-gunner I have read to date. Bravo, a great achievement and a positive reflection on the University of Vermont, the Lyon Company, Look Imaging and Rhythms of Life. And one would hope that the kids served by your various non-profits have your blog as required reading.
This looks to be fun.
#29 by John of Manchester on June 3, 2008 - 8:57 pm
Yes, yes I am.
Although, I am never so much the LOSER as the person that abandoned his passenger to her watery DEATH after being BATSHIT DRUNK, and driving off the local bridge, and having neither the sand or alacrity to make something positive of it.
TK: Technical Knockout. Anyone in normal world, would have went to jail, and then languished as a felon. Nepotism works even in negligent homicide, if you are well connected.
So fuck you, in the name of the dead,… Albert.
#30 by Bob S. on June 3, 2008 - 9:02 pm
Albert,
Right and you have a right to own a car, just like Ted does. But did Ted’s car kill the young lady or was it Ted’s actions?
Noticed you didn’t answer the question, how do inanimate objects commit murder?
Your logic doesn’t work. The 2nd amendment doesn’t protect inanimate objects in general, but “arms”.
The real question becomes “Are nuclear weapons arms?” Some, and I’m in a minority here, would say legally – yes nuclear weapons are arms and should be available.
Ever read the story of “The Radioactive Boy Scout“?
The point I’m trying to make is two fold
1st, anyone who really wants nuclear weapons can get or make them.
2nd, the law only affects the law abiding. Even if you or I had a nuclear weapon, we wouldn’t use it, so why shouldn’t we be able to possess one if we wanted.
#31 by John of Manchester on June 3, 2008 - 9:17 pm
When a person drives a car unto a persons DEATH, it is not inanimate, so is true for a GUN! What is cogent is whether the person in possession is cogently driven.
Time to ban cars, as fools regularly drive them, wreck them, and kill other innocents with them. To the DEAD, they had no other purpose at that moment.
IT IS ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY!
If asked whether I want a vehicle for my convenience, or a gun to preserve my Liberty, it is a no brainer. I don’t need a car, but I do need a weapon to defend myself from those that think otherwise. Preferably something LETHAL, like a GUN!
Thankfully, this question is well decided in the The Constitutions’ Bill of Rights…,
SECOND Amendment.
The Right to personally own and bear arms…, an Inalienable Right,
So go and FUCK YOURSELVES, as you beat your meat and try to deny it!
#32 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 9:28 pm
John-o-M:
Pardon me for not sulking to your level of frustration to where profane ad hominem is required. But I did notice while you ranted re Ted Kennedy you conveniently forgot to mention the favors that nepotism brought our current beloved George Bush, who carries the blood of 4,000 dead soldiers on his hands following years of lies and misrepresentations to the American public.
Bit of a double standard, there, eh, John??
Have a cigarette; it’ll calm your exploding head!
#33 by John of Manchester on June 3, 2008 - 9:36 pm
Logic, logic, logic,..damnable logic, kept us advent free of nuclear destruction for 50 years against the most formidable foe ever seen. The Soviet Union. Period.
Think being rationally armed doesn’t mean something?
Ask the dead of stalins’ minions….and the legions of nazis that proved the point.
shave and a haircut…two bits…
#34 by John of Manchester on June 3, 2008 - 9:40 pm
Ad hominem has to do with directly confronted statements.
You would extend this to your TEAM no doubt?
I accept all comers.
Please aim for the cup.
Sooo, as for me, I don’t smoke.
#35 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 9:44 pm
Then I recommend a wad of chew – and aim for the cup!
#36 by John of Manchester on June 3, 2008 - 10:05 pm
So do you have cock in your mouth, and a drool cup to spit in after excitation?
Jus wonderin’ fer real.
#37 by Albert O. on June 3, 2008 - 10:42 pm
John:
I think it’s time for you to put the bottle away and go nite-nite!
#38 by Bob S. on June 4, 2008 - 6:16 am
John
I would like to request a favor of you sir. Let’s not descend to the level or worse of the anti-freedom folks on the board with the personal attacks, name calling or cursing.
I realize fully this is your choice and can at times even agree with the sentiments, trust me I really can.
But if we can show a clear difference in behavior it makes it that much easier to get across our message.
Thanks
#39 by Cliff Lyon on June 4, 2008 - 8:28 am
Exactly Richard. The only species more cowardly than hand gun-carrying white men are Congress dwellers.
#40 by Cliff Lyon on June 4, 2008 - 8:33 am
Bob S,
I think I prefer the rudeness and personal attacks to a nice polite argument with someone who insists that guns and cars are the same.
Let me know if you ever see a toddler strapped to a revolver.
#41 by Bob S. on June 4, 2008 - 9:46 am
Cliff,
First, your preference for rudeness and personal attacks is well established by your behavior. The question is why? I feel it’s because you don’t have to answer the rude or personal attacks.
Second, nice attempt at misdirection. I have never said cars and firearms are the same. I have said that mis-use of them should be treated as the same.
Both are tools, would you agree with that?
Can both objects be used safely? Yes. There are 270 million firearms are in America and very few are every mis-used. There are nearly 250 million passenger vehicles on the road in America. As the numbers I’ve posted previously, the normal use and mis-use of cars make them more dangerous than firearms.
I’ve repeatedly stated that IF you really cared about people being hurt, shouldn’t you go after cars first?
How about I use your own words again
I’ve asked repeatedly why crimes committed with one tool or another should be treated any differently.
How does it matter if a person is killed with a knife, tire iron, car, firearm, tennis racket or rock? The intent and the premeditation should be the primary factors, not the tool. Dead is dead regardless of the tool used.
Your own words prove what we’ve been saying all along
How about addressing those more powerful factors rather than a tool?
#42 by Albert O. on June 4, 2008 - 9:58 am
Hmmm. So now we have a tennis racket being equated with a hand-gun. Goinging to have to think about that one for a second.
Hey J-o-M? Sleep if off yet??
#43 by John of Manchester on June 4, 2008 - 9:59 am
Truly, I enjoyed that, the quality of the opposition yields to this.
Albert, I asked questions, and never attacked you, I received no answers, as is typical.
Cliff, you are correct, cars and guns are not the same, under the Constitution you are guaranteed the right to own and bear guns, but have no such protections in owning a car.
Enough politeness already, the foolishness being promoted under the guise of intellectual discussion is wearing thin from those that would destroy elements of the Bill of Rights.
Bob a jd, I am unaffiliated though I agree with your support of the 2nd amendment. So for any that would think so, what I asked of Albert and other gun grabbers is my own question and is not to taken in with your organization.
#44 by jdberger on June 4, 2008 - 9:59 am
Cliff? Why do you insist that we are Caucasian? Why do you insist that we are men? How would you know any of this?
Please don’t respond that you “Googled it”, I’d rather not spit coffee all over my computer.
#45 by Bob S. on June 4, 2008 - 10:07 am
Cliff,
Do you ever feel like a hypocrite or do you just shrug it off.
Remember this comment you made:
But in this posting you say:
Or this one
You post the number of murders, but don’t show that the number was already in a downward trend.
As I posted earlier.
How about answering the effectiveness of the gun ban in England. Australia may not have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms but there are millions of firearms. If a ban was effective, wouldn’t you see a reducttion or elimination of that type of crime, regardless of the raw numbers? But you’ve already proved the pro-freedom crowds point
If it is impossible to correlate any increase or decrease in gun ownership with crime, why keep trying?
#46 by jdberger on June 4, 2008 - 10:19 am
Or, Cliff, correlate the gun ban in Australia with the bans in Russia and Mexico.
See, Australia used to have some sort of legal civilian gun ownership – Russia and Mexico hasn’t.
So why are the murder rates so disparate?
As far as Great Britain is concerned, their crime stats don’t include acts of “political violence” so they cannot be relied upon.
But, go ahead and keep linking to yourself, Cliff Lyon. See if you can make Google work for you….
#47 by Cliff Lyon on June 4, 2008 - 10:23 am
The rationale that more guns reduce crime is the stuff of hollywood movies (Charleton Heston anyone).
What we can predict is a reduction in suicide and homicide if there were no guns.
Bob S, I see you are backing off the Australia claim. I appreciate the gesture.
#48 by John of Manchester on June 4, 2008 - 10:27 am
“Have a cigarette; it’ll calm your exploding head”! Says Albert.
Let’s talk about banning smoking altogether. There is no Constitutional guarantee to smoke, the compulsive habit endangers the health of others in the home where there is a smoker, and to be sure the compulsive habit has absolutely no redeeming features.
Its use kills far more people than any handguns.
This conversation is played out, and getting boring, a soap that has run too long.
Isolating tobacco users looks like a much more worthy target of a product ban than any other around. Sure doesn’t have the Constitutional protections of owning and bearing arms.
Let’s ban tobacco. It ostensibly has absolutely no use whatsoever.
#49 by Cliff Lyon on June 4, 2008 - 10:28 am
Jdb,
Mexico and Russia do not have the civic or institutional structures to reliably measure shit. I’m guessing you never heard of either before reading about them in Soldiers of Fortune.
#50 by jdberger on June 4, 2008 - 10:48 am
Ah, Cliff – a little bit of that ole Western elitism creeping in there, huh?
Surely your “credentials” would have given you the knowledge that the old Soviet bureacracies don’t just die out because of a name change, no? And what’s this comment about Mexico? Do you have any evidence of your disparaging comments, Cliff?
Maybe you should Giggle, err, Google it?
Oh, and your “Australia claim”, Cliff, is full of crap. Please see my post above (I like how you’ve conveniently ignored it).
#51 by Bob S. on June 4, 2008 - 10:55 am
Cliff,
What in the world are you talking about? I’m not backing off any claim.
I’m calling you out on your picking two disparate statistics and trying to prove that something is effective, then going on to admit there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.
You remember saying that, don’t you?
It does not matter whether or not Australia has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There are firearms present in the country, firearms are being imported legally and illegally, firearms are being used in crimes and as you state it is impossible to correlate gun ownership with crime.
The trend in homicides is not something brought about by banning firearms, but a national trend started decades earlier. So what proof do you have that it is effective?
Is overall crime down in Australia?
Compared to 2005, the number of victims recorded by Australian state and territory police agencies in 2006 decreased for motor vehicle theft and other theft, as well as for attempted murder and kidnapping/abduction (table 1). The offence categories recording the largest declines were attempted murder (down 11%) and motor vehicle theft (down 7%). Conversely, there were increases in the number of victims of blackmail/extortion (up 10%) and murder (up 8%).
Let’s look at those trends for a single statistic
Firearm Murders
2001 – 50
2002 – 42
2003 – 37
2004 – 32
2005 – 23 (revised)
2006 – 46
Looks like a reversal of that trend in 2006, doesn’t prove the effectiveness of gun control does it? 10 years after gun control measures were in place and still firearm crime and an increase.
Even the Center for Disease Control was unable to prove any gun law was effective.
Nothing you’ve posted proved the effectiveness of gun control, but your statement is accurate
Want to try England?
Or how about addressing
that I mentioned in earlier posts – factors that you have repeatedly ignored?
#52 by Bob S. on June 10, 2008 - 6:17 am
Cliff,
See that you still aren’t addressing those other issues you asked to see.
Here is another link