Guns, Guns Guns

About the same as NZ then. we have two bombings in 51 and 84 , one aimed at helping in a union dispute, one aimed at disrupting the unions, 1 lone anarchist who tried to blow up a data centre, getting only himself, and the rainbow warrior, which was an international act of terrorism by the french secret service. So 2 lots of politics, 1 madman, and 1 actual terroristic attack, with a total of 2 casualties not including the suicide bomber.

Annachie wrote:The history of terrorism in Australia, if I even use the term, is predominately bikie gang related.
Of the two bombings that weren't (at least that I can think of) one was against a Jewish school and the other is unknown but needed someone highly placed in the government to pull off.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Daryl wrote:You could also mention Venezuela at 51, or Honduras at 65 but only if you concede that you are comparing 3d world countries to the USA. The same FBI charts show the USA at 4.5% which sounds good until compared to Australia at 0.11% or nearly all developed countries at below 0.5%.

Obviously all the USA is not uniformly bad, but this just shows up the disadvantages of having a weak central government. If you had enforceable national gun laws, along with a national welfare and health safety net, and a national minimum wage (at a liveable level), then you wouldn't have as many desperate people living in shameful conditions.

Major flag on the play. It is not percent. Have you been taking lessons from our economists and taxing the rich from a few years ago. Serious unintentional error is my guess.

But lets look at this in the percent chance in an 80 year lifetime. It is 0.36% that a person will be murdered in the US. Using the current rate.

Puerto Rico is in the US. A territory. It was a link of US States it included PR and DC. It has ~1 percent of the pop. and 6% of the homicides.

So when we talk about where, why and what works in the US. It isn't listed. Curious that.

Strong Central Government wonderful.

Those strong economies where exactly was China? As a country they are quite definitely a strong economy. Per capita sucks.

Lets do the USSR they had elections, how many did they kill? Communist China I believe they had elections.

No thank you.

sarcasm tag on
For that matter sure lets use the same national gun laws. I want Vermont's. Unrestricted Open Carry, ... yet homicide rate 1.6 a third of the national average. So sure lets improve things and adopt them. Still won't be as good as Australia but three times better would seem to be a good step.
Sarcasm tag off.

Have a good day,
T2M

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont

Apologies for putting in the % sign, brain snap. Figures were per 100,000 people, and I knew that just didn't connected it to the keyboard.
I also knew that Puerto Rico was a territory of the US, so don't see why you restate that, as my theme was how different the statistics were across the USA showing how weak federal laws were.

For some reason there seems to be a belief that a strong central government = a socialist dictatorship. Doesn't have to be, and most developed democracies have strong central governments that are accountable to the people at the ballot box, aided by a free press.
I wouldn't trust any statistics from China or Russia as they will be whatever the government decrees them to be.

Daryl wrote:Apologies for putting in the % sign, brain snap. Figures were per 100,000 people, and I knew that just didn't connected it to the keyboard.
I also knew that Puerto Rico was a territory of the US, so don't see why you restate that, as my theme was how different the statistics were across the USA showing how weak federal laws were.

For some reason there seems to be a belief that a strong central government = a socialist dictatorship. Doesn't have to be, and most developed democracies have strong central governments that are accountable to the people at the ballot box, aided by a free press.
I wouldn't trust any statistics from China or Russia as they will be whatever the government decrees them to be.

Thank you for correcting that.

I assumed as much for both.

Citing numbers for Honduras matters not at all to an American in the following context.

My question related to the fact that as an example, both US sides, quote, when giving US examples, DC or Chicago but ignore the worst.

I don't know. How do you stop the cult of personality. You know like Venezuela where "supposedly" it has a 96.2 literacy rate according to a bing return. Or maybe the current leadership in Russia(I agree with your view stats). There was a reason I said USSR.

As far as "Socialist Dictatorship". Well, one I was trying to avoid the whole Godwin's law thing.

I could as easily used an example of say Japanese Americans in World War 2. Our current and ongoing treatment of Native Americans. General Public, either doesn't care and to be honest it isn't their own best interest.

There is quote that I am too lazy to look up. "A government a strong enough to give you anything you want, can take anything it wants", or some such.

Yep being individually responsible for ones actions is messy.
Strong central governments can be a very good thing. They can as has been demonstrated the worst thing ever. Even if elected and follow the current laws.

I believe in individual responsibility. Which means as I choose not to own a gun can be shot by some 100 pound weakling at their whim. <shrug> Price of my beliefs.

Have fun,
T2M

PS: At the risk of topic drift. How does a federal minimum wage work when I pay $40 dollars for a motel room in IDaho and $130 in the Texas panhandle? I get the same thing in both places and one is 3 times the price of the other. Both were in similar demographic areas. Only thing that changed was location. Oh and one happened last year the other(cheaper) this year.

::a Naughty Moose replies::
Don't worry about that, T2M.
After all, if you did choose to own a gun,
and carry it,
then you could *still* be shot by that 100 lb weakling!
(If he got the drop on you.)

NM

thinkstoomuch wrote:{snip - htm}
I believe in individual responsibility. Which means as I choose not to own a gun can be shot by some 100 pound weakling at their whim. <shrug> Price of my beliefs.
{snip}
Have fun,
T2M

LOL!

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:::a Naughty Moose replies::
Don't worry about that, T2M.
After all, if you did choose to own a gun,
and carry it,
then you could *still* be shot by that 100 lb weakling!
(If he got the drop on you.)

NM

thinkstoomuch wrote:{snip - htm}
I believe in individual responsibility. Which means as I choose not to own a gun can be shot by some 100 pound weakling at their whim. <shrug> Price of my beliefs.
{snip}
Have fun,
T2M

This is different than me sitting on my motorcycle at a red light and a texting cage driver runs me over, how?

I my view car is a much bigger risk of death in my everyday life.

Getting the drop on me, malicious intent vs oh well he shouldn't ride a motorcycle. In what seems our society's view.

You really think somebody as anal retentive as me hasn't considered both of these and many others.

"Be Careful out there" ,
T2M

PS The car driver only gets charged will involutary manslaughter or some such. He may even do jail time.

PPS ignore the PM I am deleting it as at first I didn't think my reply was relevant to the topic.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:::a Naughty Moose replies::
Don't worry about that, T2M.
After all, if you did choose to own a gun,
and carry it,
then you could *still* be shot by that 100 lb weakling!
(If he got the drop on you.)

NM

Yup. To live is to risk dying. Forcibly limiting one's options in our lives seems like a very poor first choice to solve life's difficulties. Better to find ways that do not limit our choices.

thinkstoomuch wrote:This is different than me sitting on my motorcycle at a red light and a texting cage driver runs me over, how?

I my view car is a much bigger risk of death in my everyday life.

Getting the drop on me, malicious intent vs oh well he shouldn't ride a motorcycle. In what seems our society's view.

You really think somebody as anal retentive as me hasn't considered both of these and many others.

"Be Careful out there" ,
T2M

PS The car driver only gets charged will involutary manslaughter or some such. He may even do jail time.

PPS ignore the PM I am deleting it as at first I didn't think my reply was relevant to the topic.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:::a Naughty Moose replies::
Don't worry about that, T2M.
After all, if you did choose to own a gun,
and carry it,
then you could *still* be shot by that 100 lb weakling!
(If he got the drop on you.)

NM

The whole thing about national laws leading to equal results everywhere made me go look up some stuff.

These are 5 year victization stats from. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... enDocument

My apologies but you have to go to downloads and select the xls link. Won't work on phones.

But looking at table 5 second sheet. 45100DO002_2014 Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2014

Also I am assuming Victimization rate is the same as what I have been talking about.

2010-2014 average

New South Wales 0.7
Victoria 1.0
Queensland 1.0
South Australia 1.2
Western Australia 1.2
Tasmania 1.4
Northern Territory 5.6
Australia Capital Territory 0.3

Mostly even but a huge outlier even in a 5 year average.

So I will break that out.
Morthern territory
2010 4.8
2011 3.5
2012 8.9
2013 7.0
2014 3.7

Guess it wasn't a single incident.

Though I wish we could get our capitol district that low. I think they are equivalent.

Yeah not worth much, a factoid, <shrug>
T2M

The Harvard researchers found where firearms ownership is most dense, violent crime rates are the lowest. And where firearms ownership is the most restricted and least dense, violent crime rates are the highest.

I can see that violent crimes is the correct indicator, rather than gun-related crimes. Also, I think that good training in firearm safety is important.

I've only glanced at the study thus far:

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

Most available info seems to be popularizations, as usual of varying quality.

Would anyone else like to look at the study, and comment on their methodology?


Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd
ddhviste@drtel.net

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!


My primary assumption is that the quality of the tests matters more than how interestingly any idea is presented.