I'm not really seeing Hillary Clinton having any coat tails.She isnt a charismatic leader of the party. She's just an old hag who's been dying to get in that office her whole life. If anything she has negative coattails. She wont pull anyone into the Congress with her . If anything the first two years will see her scaring the bejesus out of everyone and we'll see an increase of R's into the House and Senate. She'll get a Supreme Court Justice. That much is true. Besides that she'll be a lame duck from day one without a Congress to move her agenda forward.
Gun buyback program "worth considering"
- Thread starter H.m.B
- Start date
- Status
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia
29 April, 2011 - 3 murdered, 3 wounded Hectorville, South Australia
9 Sept, 2014 - 5 murdered, Lockhart, New South Wales
22 Oct, 2014 - 3 murdered, Logan, Victoria
Those 3 mass shootings since Port Arthur show the lies the Antis tell when citing the Australian "ban/buyback". The Antis that love the ban so much also never include the mass murders in Australia by bludgeon, stabbing and arson.
After Port Arthur and the ban, 74 people died in mass murders in Australia. Certainly not the zero implied by "buyback" fans, but how many died in mass murders in the same period before? Surely it had to be a staggering number many times greater than the subsequent "salvation" provided by the "Australian Solution". Hundreds? Right? ... At least a hundred? ...
Between April of '76 and '96 seventy nine people died in mass murders in Australia. Wait...that's almost the same number of people that died in mass murders in Australia both in the 20 years after as before the Port Arthur massacre? How can that be?... Unless Port Arthur was an anomaly.
How can it be that when there were fewer restrictions on firearms in Australia that the number of dead were barely more than the two decades after the government confiscated firearms from their subjects? Surely the number of dead should be radically different, but anyone that can search "Australian mass murders" can see that there's nearly no difference.
Perhaps the truth is that when you cherry pick what you want to see and conveniently ignore the rest of the homicide data you can argue anything, but instead I'd rather see the information available and understand it on my own without the spin. If that's the case we can see that Australia had the nearly the same body count from all forms of mass murder regardless of this approach of fixating on guns instead of violence. What if gross body count is deceptive, though? Rates make up for the flaws in head counts.
Rates are the most important value for comparisons, but let us not forget that we're trying to win an argument with people that are going to pick their terms and facts to suit their argument and then push those even farther.
The population growth rate for Australia appears to be very consistent in the period we're discussing, which is good since we can trust to extrapolation backwards to '76.
[resize=240]
[/resize]
That's unimpressive considering the claims made by the antis that the Australian ban provided the ultimate solution to homicides and mass murder.
Let's consider homicide rates where the objective data is clearer. Our homicide rate is half of what it was in the late '90s, but how much have Australian homicide rates dropped?
Figure 2 Homicide incidents by year 1989–90 to 2011–12 (rate per 100,000)
The Australian rate of homicides drops somewhat, but the change doesn't match the U.S. rate of change as our rate of murders have dropped in half as our ownership of firearms happened to be increasing (no, there is no causal relationship between increased firearms ownership and decreasing homicide rate since our other homicides dropped as well at about the same rate indicating a separate driver).
Look at the same '89 to 2010 periods and we can see that our homicide rates plummeted compared to the Australian homicide rates. Not the gross numbers, but the far more relevant rate of homicides.
The U.S. halved the homicide rate (all means) vs. Australia that only reduced theirs 30% of their high. How can the Australian solution be less effective than our "total inaction" at reducing homicide rates if it is the ultimate solution as claimed by Ms. Clinton and others then?
Speaking of suicides, the U.S. suicide rate (12.1) is higher than Australia's (10.6) and below France (12.3), Iceland (14.0), Belgium (14.2), Finland, Japan (18.5), Russia (19.5) and South Korea (28.9). Australians are close enough in suicide rates to point out that they should be much much lower if firearms were a causal factor. Obviously we would point even more to those other countries like France and Belgium and Japan that have much lower firearms ownership rates than the U.S. with markedly higher suicide rates. But the discussion is on mass murders in Australia vs. the U.S. as opposed to firearms relationships to suicides or overall homicide rates.
What's the point in this diversion from the original topic of the Australian Solution? We see that mass murders in Australia haven't disappeared and that the rate of them hasn't fallen off that dramatically. We see that the Australian suicide rate is lower than the U.S. suicide rate, but only a bit lower instead of near zero that the Antis want to infer from their idolizing of the Australian ban. We see that homicide rates for Australia are dramatically lower than the U.S. being a quarter of U.S. rates, but still not near zero. The Antis point to Australia's firearms ban as being a great solution, but their mass murder rate is only a bit lower after the ban as before it, their homicide rate is little changed after the ban and their suicide rate isn't that different from ours.
To further muddy the waters.
Looks like most rates of homicides have stayed the same or fallen much slower than our rate of homicides since the 90's making the claims about Australia worthless to those willing to critically research them.
29 April, 2011 - 3 murdered, 3 wounded Hectorville, South Australia
9 Sept, 2014 - 5 murdered, Lockhart, New South Wales
22 Oct, 2014 - 3 murdered, Logan, Victoria
Those 3 mass shootings since Port Arthur show the lies the Antis tell when citing the Australian "ban/buyback". The Antis that love the ban so much also never include the mass murders in Australia by bludgeon, stabbing and arson.
After Port Arthur and the ban, 74 people died in mass murders in Australia. Certainly not the zero implied by "buyback" fans, but how many died in mass murders in the same period before? Surely it had to be a staggering number many times greater than the subsequent "salvation" provided by the "Australian Solution". Hundreds? Right? ... At least a hundred? ...
Between April of '76 and '96 seventy nine people died in mass murders in Australia. Wait...that's almost the same number of people that died in mass murders in Australia both in the 20 years after as before the Port Arthur massacre? How can that be?... Unless Port Arthur was an anomaly.
How can it be that when there were fewer restrictions on firearms in Australia that the number of dead were barely more than the two decades after the government confiscated firearms from their subjects? Surely the number of dead should be radically different, but anyone that can search "Australian mass murders" can see that there's nearly no difference.
Perhaps the truth is that when you cherry pick what you want to see and conveniently ignore the rest of the homicide data you can argue anything, but instead I'd rather see the information available and understand it on my own without the spin. If that's the case we can see that Australia had the nearly the same body count from all forms of mass murder regardless of this approach of fixating on guns instead of violence. What if gross body count is deceptive, though? Rates make up for the flaws in head counts.
Rates are the most important value for comparisons, but let us not forget that we're trying to win an argument with people that are going to pick their terms and facts to suit their argument and then push those even farther.
The population growth rate for Australia appears to be very consistent in the period we're discussing, which is good since we can trust to extrapolation backwards to '76.
[resize=240]
[/resize]That's unimpressive considering the claims made by the antis that the Australian ban provided the ultimate solution to homicides and mass murder.
Let's consider homicide rates where the objective data is clearer. Our homicide rate is half of what it was in the late '90s, but how much have Australian homicide rates dropped?
Figure 2 Homicide incidents by year 1989–90 to 2011–12 (rate per 100,000)
The Australian rate of homicides drops somewhat, but the change doesn't match the U.S. rate of change as our rate of murders have dropped in half as our ownership of firearms happened to be increasing (no, there is no causal relationship between increased firearms ownership and decreasing homicide rate since our other homicides dropped as well at about the same rate indicating a separate driver).
Look at the same '89 to 2010 periods and we can see that our homicide rates plummeted compared to the Australian homicide rates. Not the gross numbers, but the far more relevant rate of homicides.
The U.S. halved the homicide rate (all means) vs. Australia that only reduced theirs 30% of their high. How can the Australian solution be less effective than our "total inaction" at reducing homicide rates if it is the ultimate solution as claimed by Ms. Clinton and others then?
Speaking of suicides, the U.S. suicide rate (12.1) is higher than Australia's (10.6) and below France (12.3), Iceland (14.0), Belgium (14.2), Finland, Japan (18.5), Russia (19.5) and South Korea (28.9). Australians are close enough in suicide rates to point out that they should be much much lower if firearms were a causal factor. Obviously we would point even more to those other countries like France and Belgium and Japan that have much lower firearms ownership rates than the U.S. with markedly higher suicide rates. But the discussion is on mass murders in Australia vs. the U.S. as opposed to firearms relationships to suicides or overall homicide rates.
What's the point in this diversion from the original topic of the Australian Solution? We see that mass murders in Australia haven't disappeared and that the rate of them hasn't fallen off that dramatically. We see that the Australian suicide rate is lower than the U.S. suicide rate, but only a bit lower instead of near zero that the Antis want to infer from their idolizing of the Australian ban. We see that homicide rates for Australia are dramatically lower than the U.S. being a quarter of U.S. rates, but still not near zero. The Antis point to Australia's firearms ban as being a great solution, but their mass murder rate is only a bit lower after the ban as before it, their homicide rate is little changed after the ban and their suicide rate isn't that different from ours.
To further muddy the waters.
Looks like most rates of homicides have stayed the same or fallen much slower than our rate of homicides since the 90's making the claims about Australia worthless to those willing to critically research them.
crashdummy
Member
They would offer $25 each, worse than a pawn shop
HSO....Thank you for posting such useful data. I encourage all of you to copy that data and pass out copies to anyone who will listen and even those who don't. It has been abundantly clear that gun control does not work as hoped for. HRCs casual comment is on the lips of many mealy-mouthed politicians who would like nothing better than to make private gun ownership illegal. I know that is unlikely, but we just need to persist and persevere.
This is what they always say, but few politicians have the balls to respond with the truth:
"We, next door, have those "lenient" gun laws that you're complaining about and our crime rates are a tiny fraction of yours. It's your scum people who are the problem, and your scum leaders who won't punish those scum people who are committing the crimes."
OilyPablo
Member
Great useful posts guys. This kind of information and data must be front and center this year.
george burns
Member
If someone wants to buy something for more money than it is worth, then fine everything can be replaced, unless it has a sentimental value. But why anyone would sell a thousand dollar pistol for a hundred bucks or two, is just stupid. They can just as easily put it up for sale anywhere they sell guns, and get what it's true value is.
You really have to be pretty stupid to sell something without knowing what it's worth.
You really have to be pretty stupid to sell something without knowing what it's worth.
ny32182
Member
It would be a horrible position to be in, but even in liberal New York, every estimate I've seen is that their "mandatory assault weapon registration" has been met with single digit compliance levels.
If they think that is bad, wait till they start trucking around the south and west.
If they think that is bad, wait till they start trucking around the south and west.
stchman
Member
If I had a real POS gun that didn't work, I would take it to a buyback and get $25 for it. Seeing as I don't have POS guns, I won't be going to a buyback any time soon.
No need to compare Chicago homicide rates with rates in other states. Just look over time or for the other cities in IL.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/crime/
http://www.rebootillinois.com/2015/...us-illinois-cities-2016-rankings-47489/47489/
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/crime/
http://www.rebootillinois.com/2015/...us-illinois-cities-2016-rankings-47489/47489/
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm
Last edited:
Acera
Member
For a mandatory buy back to work their has to be mandatory registration of all guns in a particular class.
This is why a line must be drawn against any registration, and those states that have it must be forced to reverse course.
While I see every High Road member doing the lawful thing if pressured to register and turn in weapons
I don't think the rest of the firearm community in this country would be quite so law abiding. It just ain't in our DNA, especially in Texas where Sam Houston once said "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
.
This is why a line must be drawn against any registration, and those states that have it must be forced to reverse course.
While I see every High Road member doing the lawful thing if pressured to register and turn in weapons
I don't think the rest of the firearm community in this country would be quite so law abiding. It just ain't in our DNA, especially in Texas where Sam Houston once said "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked