Thread and graph is a joke without mentioning Mexico.
Printable View
Thread and graph is a joke without mentioning Mexico.
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]Thread and graph is a joke without mentioning Mexico.[/QUOTE]
It isn't like they are hiding the fact, they mention they didn't include it. "I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war."
Also the fact that Mexico is worse than the US doesn't make the US any better.
[QUOTE=miller-time]It isn't like they are hiding the fact, they mention they didn't include it. "I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war."
Also the fact that Mexico is worse than the US doesn't make the US any better.[/QUOTE]
It's just indicative of the entire argument. If you can't trust either side to present the unadulterated facts then we are never going to find a compromise. We need discussions in good faith, not agenda driven propaganda.
[QUOTE=The Macho Man]America kinda sucks besides basketball[/QUOTE]
And that was created by a Canadian.
It doesn't matter if they included Mexico in the graph or Antarctica even. The discussion is how to lower gun related deaths in the USA. Not bring it down to an acceptable level compared to other parts of the world. Only numbers that apply are the ones from the USA.
Saying ooooo look we're not as bad as XYZ is a copout
[QUOTE=Nanners]why didnt they include mexico or russia in that graph?[/QUOTE]
"Yeah! Look at us! We're slightly better than Mexico!"
Real high bar you've set for yourselves there, guys.
[QUOTE=bmulls]It's just indicative of the entire argument. If you can't trust either side to present the unadulterated facts then we are never going to find a compromise. We need discussions in good faith, not agenda driven propaganda.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about. They weren't hiding anything. How exactly is including Mexico, a country rampant with drug related violence going to have any impact on Americas standing to the rest of the world? Yes Mexico is worse, but the author isn't trying to hide that fact. So how is something propaganda when all parts are accounted for (left out or not)?
[QUOTE=Math2]But what about here, does the gang wars in Chicago not skew things? How is that any different than excluding Mexico, which admittedly has it's drug wars on a much higher scale than our gang wars.[/QUOTE]
uhm, again, I see your reading comprehension is not the best. How are gang wars impacted by another nation-states policy? The violence in mexico is an outgrowth and reflection of US violence.
Do anybody know how many of the gun related crimes have alcohol involved?
if anything, the high rate in mexico reinforces the importance of gun control. where did 90% of all the confiscated guns in MX come from? They were legally purchased in the US. The US gun laws have a direct impact on the presence and use of guns in mexico. That is a fact. Even the repubs have indirectly acknowledged this with their pursuit of too fast too furious.
It's all Detroit's fault.
[QUOTE=magnax1]The US is rampant with drug related violence too lol. You cant excuse mexico for it and than ignore the fact that a huge % of crimes in the US are commited by drug addicts.[/QUOTE]
The key difference being the terms "drug related crime or violence" and "drug war." In Mexico large amounts of violence and murder are being committed by a relatively small number of people. Where as in the US there is more variation and larger numbers in the people committing these crimes.
[QUOTE=RaininThrees]And that was created by a Canadian.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcpyusZ2mP1qk7867o1_500.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=magnax1]The US is rampant with drug related violence too lol. You cant excuse mexico for it and than ignore the fact that a huge % of crimes in the US are commited by drug addicts.[/QUOTE]
the difference being that, in mexico, its not about drug users, its about drug shipments. The massive drug use in the US is what causes the drug-related violence in mexico,
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]Thread and graph is a joke without mentioning Mexico.[/QUOTE]
So as long as we don't reach the rates of the country where the government and several cartels are fighting it out over control of the drug trade we're doing fine?
Found an opinion piece from the Syndey Morning Herald by Australia's former Prime Minister from 1996-2007, John Howard.
[url]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html[/url]
[QUOTE]EARLY in 2008 Janette and I were guests of the former president, George H. W. Bush or ''41'', as he is affectionately known, at his Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. I spoke to a warm and friendly audience of more than 300 who enthusiastically reacted until, in answer to a request to nominate the proudest actions of the Australian government I had led for almost 12 years, I included the national gun control laws enacted after the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996.
Having applauded my references to the liberation of East Timor, leaving Australia debt free, presiding over a large reduction in unemployment and standing beside the US in the global fight against terrorism, there was an audible gasp of amazement at my expressing pride in what Australia had done to limit the use of guns.
I had been given a sharp reminder that, despite the many things we have in common with our American friends, there is a huge cultural divide when it comes to the free availability of firearms.
Just under two weeks ago, my wife and I were in Dallas, Texas, when the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, took place. The responses of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, his presumed Republican opponent, were as predictable as they were disappointing. While expressing sorrow at such a loss of life, both quickly said that they supported the Second Amendment to the US constitution: long regarded as providing an extensive right for Americans to bear arms.
The Second Amendment, crafted in the immediate post-revolutionary years, is more than 200 years old and was designed to protect the right of local communities to raise and maintain militia for use against external threats (including the newly formed national government!). It bears no relationship at all to the circumstances of everyday life in America today. Yet there is a near religious fervour about protecting the right of Americans to have their guns - and plenty of them.
In this respect it is worth noting that the local police claim that James Holmes, the man now formally charged over the Aurora shootings, had in his possession an AR15 assault rifle (similar to one used by Martin Bryant at Port Arthur), a shotgun and two Glock handguns and 6000 rounds of ammunition. All had been legally obtained.
Obama and Romney are both highly intelligent, decent men who care deeply about the safety of Americans. Yet such is the strength of the pro-gun culture in their country that neither felt able to use the Aurora tragedy as a reason to start a serious debate on gun control.
There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.
The murder rate in the US is roughly four times that in each of Australia, New Zealand, and Britain. Even the most diehard supporter of guns must concede that America's lax firearms laws are a major part of the explanation for such a disparity.
On April 28, 1996, Bryant, using two weapons, killed 35 people in Tasmania. It was, at that time, the largest number of people who had died in a single series of incidents at the hands of one person.
The national gun control laws delivered by the Howard government, following this tragedy received bipartisan support. They, nonetheless, caused internal difficulties for some of my then National Party colleagues. Tim Fischer and John Anderson, then leader and deputy leader of the National Party federally, as well as Rob Borbidge, then National Party premier of Queensland, courageously faced down opponents in their own ranks to support a measure they knew to be in the national interest. Many believed, in the months that followed, that hostility towards these gun laws played a role in the emergence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation cause.
[B]These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.[/B]
A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms.
Australia is a safer country as a result of what was done in 1996. It will be the continuing responsibility of current and future federal and state governments to ensure the effectiveness of those anti-gun laws is never weakened. The US is a country for which I have much affection. There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit. But when it comes to guns we have been right to take a radically different path.
Read more: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html#ixzz2FHUnSOJI[/url]
[/QUOTE]
While he made lot of sense, this part troubled me...
"[B]A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns[/B], was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms."
Why would you ban possession of ALL rifles/shotguns and to top it off destroy so many firearms instead of saving it in a government facility? Sounds like Australia is defenseless against outside dangers. Their laws seem to mostly be at the extreme end of the spectrum. Anyone remember their video game measures? They seem like a paranoid bunch, great that they feel safe from the inside, but they are giving up lot of rights for that security.
^Something like that would be impossible and impractical in America because we have far too many of them already. Any law passed wouldn't be retroactive on guns already owned.
[QUOTE=Graviton]While he made lot of sense, this part troubled me...
"[B]A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns[/B], was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms."
Why would you ban possession of ALL rifles/shotguns and to top it off destroy so many firearms instead of saving it in a government facility? Sounds like Australia is defenseless against outside dangers. Their laws seem to mostly be at the extreme end of the spectrum. Anyone remember their video game measures? They seem like a paranoid bunch, great that they feel safe from the inside, but they are giving up lot of rights for that security.[/QUOTE]
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about
[QUOTE=Graviton]Why would you ban possession of ALL rifles/shotguns and to top it off destroy so many firearms instead of saving it in a government facility? [B]Sounds like Australia is defenseless against outside dangers. [/B]Their laws seem to mostly be at the extreme end of the spectrum. Anyone remember their video game measures? They seem like a paranoid bunch, great that they feel safe from the inside, but they are giving up lot of rights for that security.[/QUOTE]
We have a military and an army reserve. They are what protect us against outside threats. We aren't defenceless.
you can have a shot gun in australia btw.
I am currently a resident of that country and own one legally, contrary to that article.
[QUOTE=Borat]You honestly have no idea what you are talking about[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Borat.
[IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/130831979143.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=miller-time]We have a military and an army reserve. They are what protect us against outside threats. We aren't defenceless.[/QUOTE]
and I'd back the australian SAS against ANY other special forces team in the world.
And I'm not alone in that
[QUOTE=Graviton]Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Borat.
[IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/130831979143.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
its all the post deserved
[QUOTE=miller-time]We have a military and an army reserve. They are what protect us against outside threats. We aren't defenceless.[/QUOTE]
How many? How well trained and equipped? If that force falls, what are the citizens gonna do?
Isn't there a big hunting culture in Australia? Some must have sniper rifles.
[QUOTE=Graviton]How many? How well trained and equipped? If that force falls, what are the citizens gonna do?
Isn't there a big hunting culture in Australia? Some must have sniper rifles.[/QUOTE]
So you mean to tell me, that if a country like the USA's military collapsed trying to protect its borders from foreigners...their civilians and their guns could do anything?
Ever heard of bombs, airplanes, tanks, nukes, grenades, trained military professionals?
This is something that applied in 1776, not anymore though.
[QUOTE=Borat]you can have a shot gun in australia btw.
I am currently a resident of that country and own one legally, contrary to that article.[/QUOTE]
What about handguns?
[QUOTE=D-Rose]So you mean to tell me, that if a country like the USA's military collapsed trying to protect its borders from foreigners...their civilians and their guns could do anything?
Ever heard of bombs, airplanes, tanks, nukes, grenades, trained military professionals?
This is something that applied in 1776, not anymore though.[/QUOTE]
Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?
If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.
[QUOTE=Graviton]Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?
If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious right now?
Australia has a strong navy, air force, and army. They have many allies around the world that would obviously back them up if someone even began to deny their sovereignty and engage their military in combat.
I mean, if you think that a country could take down their entire military, why the hell do you think armed civilians are going to be able to defend themselves against the same force? :wtf:
[QUOTE=Graviton]Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?
If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll:
wtf...
as if civilians owning arms will do a thing. delusional gun enthusiast thinks his gun will help him defend himself if the government army comes or another nation attacks him with a bomb
I'd like to see what help your gun brings when a swat team comes busting down your door
[QUOTE=Graviton]How many? How well trained and equipped? If that force falls, what are the citizens gonna do?
Isn't there a big hunting culture in Australia? Some must have sniper rifles.[/QUOTE]
If the force falls we would do what every other country would we would all be wiped out. You are living in a delusion if you think handguns and shotguns can stop an invading force that already wiped out your standing and reserve armies. There is a reason insurgents have their hands on RPGs and heavy weapons (which are also illegal to US civilians).
Regionally (south-east Asia) our military equipment is good, but it wouldn't be anything compared to places like Britain or China or the US obviously. If another world war happened we would be able to bolster up pretty quickly I'd imagine (technologically and financially) but at the moment we don't really have much threat or need here - we are fairly isolated.
I'm not sure how popular hunting is really, I live in the city. There is a pretty big cultural divide between city life and country life. I'd assume hunting is pretty popular in the country, but a lot of it would be because it is necessary (to keep down numbers of pests and invasive species). But the weapons they have would be 303s and shotguns. Nothing like AR-15s or anything.
[QUOTE=D-Rose]Are you serious right now?
Australia has a strong navy, air force, and army. They have many allies around the world that would obviously back them up if someone even began to deny their sovereignty and engage their military in combat.
I mean, if you think that a country could take down their entire military, why the hell do you think armed civilians are going to be able to defend themselves against the same force? :wtf:[/QUOTE]
They could deter the invaders if all of them fought together, instead of the small portion. It's not like they will sit back and watch while their military was picked apart. It would be harder to take over the population. Didn't you see Red Dawn man?
[QUOTE=Graviton]They could deter the invaders if all of them fought together, instead of the small portion. It's not like they will sit back and watch while their military was picked apart. It would be harder to take over the population. Didn't you see Red Dawn man?[/QUOTE]
Wow, okay I'm half convinced you're trolling because you're using a hollywood flick as a source. :facepalm
@Miller-time
Thanks for the informative response, I now know more about Australia.
Is it just me or the guys continuing to lobby for guns here on ISH the past 2 days just... to be straightforward, quite.. unintelligent? I mean the counterarguments and the examples seem like they come from middle school kids. I guess it's a true reflection of the situation in U.S. afterall. The gun enthusiasts do think like them, and no matter how much you try to convince them, they'll come back with totally wack and out-of-world counterarguments.
[QUOTE=D-Rose]Wow, okay I'm half convinced you're trolling because you're using a hollywood flick as a source. :facepalm[/QUOTE]
I use sarcasm often, it's hard to detect at times. Did the "Red Dawn" part shock you lol?
[QUOTE=ripthekik]Is it just me or the guys continuing to lobby for guns here on ISH the past 2 days just... to be straightforward, quite.. unintelligent? I mean the counterarguments and the examples seem like they come from middle school kids. I guess it's a true reflection of the situation in U.S. afterall. The gun enthusiasts do think like them, and no matter how much you try to convince them, they'll come back with totally wack and out-of-world counterarguments.[/QUOTE]
I think it's just you being too extreme and also not detecting sarcasm. Me and bmulls presented rational solutions and supported tighter restrictions. Some others are just emotional and want unrealistic bans.
You shouldn't talk about middle school antics, most of your posts are childish insults about Lebron. You act a lot like a kid with lot of insecurities. Usually the guy who starts throwing out insults and stereotypes is the one with no argument or knowledge. Most of the discussion we had lately was logical, even if heated at times.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]Is it just me or the guys continuing to lobby for guns here on ISH the past 2 days just... to be straightforward, quite.. unintelligent? I mean the counterarguments and the examples seem like they come from middle school kids. I guess it's a true reflection of the situation in U.S. afterall. The gun enthusiasts do think like them, and no matter how much you try to convince them, they'll come back with totally wack and out-of-world counterarguments.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they are necessarily unintelligent. I just think they are kind of selfish. They are quite literally sticking to their guns. They almost argue in a cyclical fashion. You never get to the end of a point, you always have to shift to a new comparison or statistic.
[QUOTE=Graviton]I think it's just you being too extreme and also not detecting sarcasm. Me and bmulls presented rational solutions and supported tighter restrictions. Some others are just emotional and want unrealistic bans.
You shouldn't talk about middle school antics, most of your posts are childish insults about Lebron. You act a lot like a kid with lot of insecurities. Usually the guy who starts throwing out insults and stereotypes is the one with no argument or knowledge. Most of the discussion we had lately was logical, even if heated at times.[/QUOTE]
Why does NBA posts have to do with this? Completely unrelated.
I have used logic and reasoning to debate this topic, yet you guys come back with completely retarded responses. Your knowledge and logic is lacking, as well as education. Just read your own responses, even a child knows it's not to be taken seriously.
I don't think I even need to say anything more. Read the posts the last 2 days. Everyone has been rational and logical, seems like the one who is calling everyone else emotional might be the one himself. When 95% of ISH are continuously correcting your stupid perspective, you know something's wrong.
[QUOTE=ripthekik]Why does NBA posts have to do with this? Completely unrelated.
I have used logic and reasoning to debate this topic, yet you guys come back with completely retarded responses. Your knowledge and logic is lacking, as well as education. Just read your own responses, even a child knows it's not to be taken seriously.
I don't think I even need to say anything more. Read the posts the last 2 days. Everyone has been rational and logical, seems like the one who is calling everyone else emotional might be the one himself. When 95% of ISH are continuously correcting your stupid perspective, you know something's wrong.[/QUOTE]
95% of ISH are liberal city kids who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting or target shooting. My opinions are only stupid to you because you disagree with them.