these two guys didn't need gun (isolated incident I know)...
-
Comment -
Ever hear of wikipedia
Contention over effects of the laws[edit source | editbeta]
Research[edit source | editbeta]
In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The AIC have published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[30][31]
Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[32] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[33] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[34]
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[35] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[36] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[37]
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[38]
Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[39] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[40]
A study co-authored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[41]
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[42]
In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[43]A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbournestudied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[44]
A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%.The study,[45] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.
In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia's gun laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive interventions".[46]
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found that there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[47]
A recent report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 per cent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.[48]Comment -
Dear Opie, Fuk You!
I can't believe you pussyied out brettels and apologized to this sarah palin dick suk'in republican douche bag! You made some good points mate and should fuk'in stick by them, that's the Aussie way! And freedom of speech is the American way! Don't fuk'in apologize to this rick perry dumb fuk Texas clone for anything you said! (rick perry is the dumb fuk governor of Texas, but that's a whole story unto itself)
If idiot fuk head Bush had listened to the many warnings he was provided with and done his fuk'in job, those planes wouldn't have been flown into the WTC buildings and pentagon! You're exactly right, we're a nation of too many fuk'in guns with idiot republicans constantly blocking any and all attempts to regulate the laws or compromise for the sake of our own children to change them.
This is not the 1800's wild wild west and there is no need for the amount of high powered weaponry available to any fuk'in lunatic out there. These idiots on here will tell you, "it's about protecting my house, family and property," when the only crime they've ever seen is some kid egging their house on Halloween! Of course they'd probably shoot and ask questions later, only to find they murdered some neighbor kid from down the street.
My sincere sympathy for the loss of your countryman, Christopher Lane. We all feel the same anger that you do. Not all Americans are gun toting idiots and not all of our kids are raised the way those 3 punks were. President Obama has tried on many occasions, just to get more thorough background checks and a national gun registry, but to no avail, because fuk'in idiot republican politicians, who are well paid and funded by the NRA, can't stomach the thought of someone having to abide by a few simple laws that would save lives.
Republicans in almost every state voted against it, even after the murders of elementary school children at Newtown, Conn. It's sad that American has become a nation of senseless, gun toting religious fuks, who think they have the right to shoot anyone or anything. It simply not safe here because of all the guns, the very thing these idiots think makes them safe, only hightens their fears and leads to many accidental shootings, many times their own children become victims becasue some dumbass forgot to securely lock up or thought he "hid" his gun well away from his kids.
Consider yourself lucky to live in a country that has some form of gun control, just like England and several others. If I lived abroad, I wouldn't even visit here because it's not safe due to easy availability of guns. When a man can't take a simple jog down the street anymore, something is seriously wrong with this country. And ignorant republician politicians whose pockets are lined with blood money are solely to blame.Comment -
i dont trust it unless its from the abs.gov.au website.
We still have a homicide by firearm rate that is around 60% of 1997 levels, even though at same time our population has increased by over a million.
Gun control in this country has undeniably worked.
No logical reason why same or similar couldnt happen over there if given a chance...Comment -
almost every day.......heres an old 1......
here's one of the race baiters...fukken tool...
love the comments..sooooo true!!Comment -
I thought Europeans and Aussies were billed as being more intellectual than Americans. I am surprised that a few in here can't seem to grasp the enormous differences between the U.S. and their country. Almost any area in the U.S. has crime maps that allow users to see recent crime. Dallas experiences nearly a 100 crimes a day in March and that number dramatically increases in the summer--data that we will have access to in the winter. Chicago's robbery rate is nearly 5 times the national average. Guns or not, these alarming trends reveal BEHAVIORAL problems.
Another interesting difference:
Canada's population (2011): 34.5 million
Australia's population (2011): 22.32
U.S.'s population (2012): 313.9 million
California's population (2012): 38 millionComment -
So you Americans think because your population is bigger that you wont see a positive outcome? How could that even be? If anything, there would be a much bigger sliding scale for you to enjoy as proof!Comment -
I am speaking of the crime and not to color of the perpetrators, but crimes not involving guns are much more frequent that crimes involving them. Because crime is so commonplace and audiences everywhere have become desensitized to crime reporting, in order to gain an audience, only the worst of the worst crimes are reported. This has shaped the perception that guns and crime are positively correlated, which is false, because thousands more crimes occur on a daily basis and do not involve a gun.Comment -
-
Brettles, did you know that crime in the U.S is not always committed with a firearm? Why is it that you think this way? What has shaped your perception of crime in the U.S.? If you were to discover the total number of crimes committed without a firearm, and then compare the total number of crimes committed with a firearm, you might, and it would be inaccurate, come up with the conclusion that crime and firearms are negatively correlated. It is important for you to contextualize your comments.Comment -
I know it's not all gun related, but the gun related numbers are overwhelming. I have fox and CNN here, also our local news stations have correspondents all over the world bringing us news from afar just like you do. Don't forget the Internet, anything you get told, we Also find out about.Comment -
Brettles, this is interesting:
Crime Statistics > Total crime victims (most recent) by country<small>VIEW DATA: Totals Definition Source 
Printable versionBar Graph Map Correlations
Showing latest available data.</small># 1 
Australia:30.1% # 2 
New Zealand:29.4% # 3 
United Kingdom:26.4% # 4 
Netherlands:25.2% # 5 
Sweden:24.7% # 6 
Italy:24.6% # 7 
Canada:23.8% # 8 
Saint Kitts and Nevis:23.2% # 9 
Malta:23.1% # 10 
Denmark:23% # 11 
Poland:22.7% = 12 
Belgium:21.4% = 12 
France:21.4% # 14 
Slovenia:21.2% # 15 
United States:21.1% # 16 
Finland:19.1% # 17 
Austria:18.8% Weighted average: 22.4% Comment -
Wikipedia?Comment -
Overwhelming, within the context of total crimes committed? Or overwhelming within the context of news stories being reported on crime? I am willing to venture our country's number of people living in poverty is higher than Australia's total population...crime and poverty are positively correlated. If we traded out our population of Americans living in poverty for your lower, middle, and upperclass, you'd get a small taste for some of the issues we face.Comment -
nationmaster.com
cmon dude, use something like actual government sites. I could of made nationmaster in less than a hourComment -
nope...nationmaster. I do not know how accurate or inaccurate that ranking is, but it based on crime rates per capita. I do find it interesting that Australia was number one...certainly would not have guessed that.
Also, just because college professors do not allow their students to use wikipedia as an academic source, does not mean that all wikipedia entries are glaring with inacuuracies. Wikipedia entries for well-known topics tend to be monitored more closerly and are supported with data.Comment -
It certainly is not in Australia. Again, you are showing your Aussie colors and until you understand the complexities of the issues that we face, it's best to not weigh in with what would or wouldn't work, unless you enjoy getting a rise out of people. Your comment reveals your ignorance...can't really blame you.Comment -
Understand that there is a positive correlation between poverty and crime, then understand that our total population of individuals living in poverty is greater than your total population. Then understand, that the number of crimes committed with a firearm are only a fraction of the total crimes committed. A shallow firearm policy is not going to fix the root of our country's crime issues. If someone were truly serious about reducing crime in the U.S., they'd work on reducing poverty and help give the poor a reason to play by the rules.Comment -
These threads always end up a regurgitated version of past gun threads. Same arguments, same logic, same story just a different page. Just like the OKC pharmacist that shot the black kid. And the guy in CA that killed the police union heads daughter. Just like Sandy hook. They ways make their way to gun control arguments. Kinda gets boring and redundant.
We will always have gun rights. It's one of our founding principles of this country.
And I couldn't agree more with Hi3her, give the people something to lose and they're a lot more likely to play by the rules. People that have nothing to lose are dangerous.Comment -
many americans pay quite a bit in taxes. it's up to the government to use those in an efficient manner to help people, not americans to just pay more. They don't do that, they just waste it or keep it in their own pockets. I don't want to pay more taxes because I honestly don't trust the government to use them in a way that will help people. And yet poor people want to rely on the government for assistance and blame everyone else for not paying enough to help them out. They should be griping at the government to use their funds more efficiently. I'd much rather take the money I pay in taxes and donate it to a shelter or food pantry or something that I know will directly help the people that need it than to send it to a government that I don't trust will do good with it.
Please don't try to make white people the "bad guy" here. If there is one, it's the government.Comment -
Lol at you seppo yanks for thinking restriction couldnt work based on population size.
And you know this as fact because???? Havent heard a single response based on logical reasoning re restrictions.
At least try it before dismissing it. Thats the height of willful ignorance otherwise...Comment -
Right-to-Carry 201241 RTC States – Violent Crime at 37-Year Low
The U.S. constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. RTC laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry firearms for protection.
The Supreme Court, striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), ruled that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” and that the amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” In Beard v. U.S. (1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and that, when attacked, a person “was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon,” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” In the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (1986), Congress said that it did not intend to “place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to . . . personal protection, or any other lawful activity.”
With Wisconsin’s adoption of an RTC law in 2011, by landslide votes of 68-27 in the Assembly and 25-8 in the Senate, there are now 41 RTC states. Thirty-eight of them have “shall issue” laws, requiring that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature.1 Three of the “shall issue” states also allow carrying without a permit, but maintain their permit systems for purposes of permit reciprocity2 with other states. In addition to the “shall issue” states, Alabama and Connecticut have fairly-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems. Another, Vermont, does not require a permit to carry. Eight of the nine non-RTC states have restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems.3 Only Illinois and the District of Columbia4 do not have permit systems and prohibit carrying altogether.
More RTC, less crime: Since 1991, when violent crime peaked in the U.S., 24 states have adopted “shall issue” laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 100 million.5 The numbers of gun owners and firearms, RTC states, and people carrying firearms for protection have risen to all-time highs. Through 2010, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 52 percent to a 47-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 48 percent to a 37-year low.6 The FBI preliminarily has reported that violent crimes decreased another 6.4 percent in the first half of 2011, translating into a seven percent decrease in the total violent crime per capita rate.7
RTC reduces crime: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., economist John Lott and David Mustard concluded, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”8
RTC success: Florida has issued the most carry permits–nearly 2 million—but revoked only 168 (0.008 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.9 Former Colorado Asst. Atty. Gen. David Kopel: “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”10 An article on Michigan’s RTC law: “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded.... National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”11
Background: Before 1987 there were 10 RTC states: Ind. Me., N.H., N.D., S.D. and Wash. had “shall issue” laws. Ala. and Conn. had fairly-administered discretionary-issue systems. Georgia’s law was interpreted as being “shall issue” in only some jurisdictions. Vermont allowed carrying without a permit. In 1987, Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has since become a model for laws adopted in other states. Through 1992, Florida’s murder rate decreased 23 percent, while the U.S. rate rose nine percent; thereafter, murder decreased nationally and in Florida.12 Then-Florida Licensing Division Director John Russi noted, “Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.”13 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.”
31 RTC states since 1987: 21 had prohibited carrying, nine (*) previously had discretionary-issue systems, and one (**) was interpreted varyingly within the state. 1989: Oregon, Penna. (Phila. added in 1995), and West Virginia (also in 1989, a judicial ruling enforced “shall issue” in Georgia**); 1990: Idaho and Mississippi; 1991: Montana; 1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee, and Wyoming; 1995: Arkansas, Nevada*, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah,* and Virginia*; 1996: Kentucky, Louisiana,* and South Carolina*; 2001: Michigan*; 2003: Colorado*; New Mexico, Minnesota,* and Missouri; 2004: Ohio; 2006: Kansas and Nebraska; 2010: Iowa,* and 2011: Wisconsin.Citizens can defend themselves: Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck concluded “robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.”14 In the 1990s, Kleck and Marc Gertz found guns were used for self-protection between 2.1-2.5 million times annually.15 The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country,” said, “The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology.”16 An earlier study for the Justice Department found 34 percent of felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and 40 percent had not committed crimes, fearing victims were armed.17
The right to self-defense has been recognized for centuries: Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” English jurist Sir William Blackstone observed that the English Bill of Rights recognized “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” as intended “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights,” the first of which is “personal security.”18 Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King’s Bench, wrote in the 18th century, “The right of self-defense . . . is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society.”19Police aren’t required to protect you: In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . . [A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
National RTC reciprocity: Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” proposes that a person with any state’s carry permit be allowed to carry in other states, as follows: In a state that issues permits, its laws would apply. In states that don’t issue permits, a federal standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; etc.
Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.): Sarah Brady: “the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” The late Pete Shields: “put up no defense - give them what they want.” Dennis Henigan: self-defense is “not a federally guaranteed constitutional right.”20 In 1999, HCI claimed that between 1991 and 1997, violent crime declined less in RTC states than in other states.21 HCI incorrectly categorized 31 states as having RTC during the period; only 17 had RTC in 1992. HCI calculated crime trends from 1992 to under-represent the impact of RTC laws; by 1992, many states had RTC for many years and had already experienced decreases in crime. HCI misclassified Alabama and Connecticut as “restrictive,” and credited restrictive laws for crime decreasing in some states, though states that had restrictive laws had them for many years, and crime did not begin declining in those states until the 1990s, when crime decreased nationally.Violence Policy Center: In 1995, VPC claimed Florida’s RTC law “puts guns into the hands of criminals” and that “criminals do apply for concealed carry licenses.”22 However, the law permits a person to carry, not acquire, a firearm. And “to set the record straight,” then-Florida Secy. of State, Sandra B. Mortham, said, “As of November 30, 1995, the Department had denied 723 applications due to criminal history.” She added, “the majority of concealed weapon or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self-defense.”23 In 2001, VPC claimed more women are murdered with handguns, than criminals killed in self-defense.24 However, the value of handguns for self-defense is not in how many criminals are killed, but in how often people use handguns to prevent crimes, and how often criminals don’t attack, fearing potential victims are armed. VPC also undercounted the number of criminals killed in self-defense by counting only those noted in police reports, thus excluding defensive homicides later determined to have been justified. VPC claims that permit-holders have committed crimes, but those listed by the group were mostly crimes not involving guns, crimes committed with guns for which a permit was not required, crimes committed in locations in which a permit was not required to possess a firearm, and instances in which no crime was committed.
McDowell Math: In 1995, anti-gun researcher David McDowell claimed that gun homicide rates increased in Miami, Jacksonville and Tampa after Florida’s RTC law.25 But homicide rates had fallen 10, 18 and 20 percent, respectively, in those metropolitan areas from 1987 until 1993, the most recent data at the time.26 To show an “increase,” McDowell calculated Jacksonville and Tampa trends from the early 1970s, when rates were lower than in 1993, but calculated Miami’s from 1983, since earlier rates were higher and suggested crime had decreased. None of McDowell’s homicides was committed by a carry permit holder, and he didn’t indicate which homicides had occurred in situations where a permit would have been required to carry a gun. McDowell once claimed D.C.’s murder rate decreased after its 1977 handgun ban; in fact the rate tripled.27
The 43:1 claim: Based upon a small study of King’s County, Washington, gun control supporters claim a gun at home is “43 times more likely” to be used to kill a family member than a criminal.28 The ratio undercounts defensive gun uses by counting only instances in which criminals were killed. Kleck has called the 43:1 ratio and its variants “the most nonsensical statistic in the gun control debate.”29Comment -
Whats sad is if this had been the other way around and a white guy kills a black boy because he was bored all the liberals would be shouting from the highest rooftops.Comment -
Acoochy, I find it ironic that you ask for logic and reasoning, when I PROVIDED logic and reasoning, if you are able to connect the dots. First, it is false to assume that all crime is committed with firearms. Only 1.8% of all crime in the U.S. is committed with a firearm (Bureau of Justice Statistics). 8% of all violent incidents are committed with a firearm (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Crime and poverty are positively correlated, and yes, obv. the poor aren't the only ones committing crimes. Our country's population of individuals living in poverty is greater than Australia's total population. Australia's population of individuals living in poverty is not even 3 million. Close to 80% of felons are repeat offenders...these are people who disregard laws. Care to take a stab at how many felons we have in the U.S.? Hint: it is close to the total population of Australia. And yes, some of these felons are still in prison (rough estimate of 1.5 million). It is believed that close ot 20 million felons live in the U.S.
We have a crime and behavioral problem that has nothing to do with firearms, yet firearms are demonized and the root of the issue is ignored. Our issues are on a plane that Australia---thank GOD!, has never even remotely been faced with.
A gun ban and more restrictions (maybe you didn't know, but many states, some with the highest rates of crime and coincidentally, the highest rates of poverty, have already put into place gun restrictions in the U.S.) will not reduce crime.
still not convinced? Maybe you should read up about how effective the U.S.has been in the war against drugs. How did that work? How about looking at how effective the U.S. has been when restricting or banning anything? These shallow policies never address the root of our issues.Comment
At least this article called out the suspects as black, these days most news articles seem to conveniently omit this detail...
