Talk:Gun control

Archive 1 (30th December 2008)

Riddle me this...

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --TCochrane 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --TCochrane 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Australia

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See here. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --TCochrane 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

Gun control was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is leftist. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by leftists, now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter gun control.--aschlafly 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's second longest serving Prime Minister.

You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --TCochrane 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are leftist, yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--aschlafly 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

How about you address my points?

So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --TCochrane 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support his claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. Philip J. Rayment 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. Philip J. Rayment 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal censorship is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--aschlafly 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)

No, Andy, it is you who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, like Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.

Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?

Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?

Philip J. Rayment 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--aschlafly 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)

As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide substantive evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? Philip J. Rayment 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: Australia drug use statistics (relevant info on page 19) and U.S. drug use

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference. Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --KevinS 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--aschlafly 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)

That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, here's a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [1] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --KevinS 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)

When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. Philip J. Rayment 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to this source. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --KevinS 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)

It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. Bugler 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I reject that we are too close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. Philip J. Rayment 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. CA†HERINE 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Heh. Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about gun control. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by leftists. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--aschlafly 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I do deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Well, as Snopes has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved). That's exactly what was being said above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? Jalast Jeweler 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. Conservapedia is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --₮K^/Talk! 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)

TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about The Australian Government itself? If you look at World Net Daily, it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement "In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent" is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[2]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of Conservapedia is the -pedia part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^

I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. Jalast Jeweler 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values"

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the Christian left's Social gospel program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the Social gospel into what is now almost a strict form of militant atheism and Liberation theology can be seen in the editorial practices of the New York Times. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the New York Times first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for modernism, which is at the heart of the Social gospel agenda. --RickD 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--aschlafly 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

An unbiased view (I hope)

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control). Right.

Pro:

Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). ETrundel 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

What is the conservative position on gun control?

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism. The debate seems to often get contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes. The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are saved and not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that revolutions often deal with individual liberties. To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate. The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. conservative 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Logic, the Bible, preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against gun control. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. conservative 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)