Anyone bring firearms with them on trips?
- Thread starter kodiak1232003
- Start date
mightymike
Adventurer
The Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 was a killing spree which claimed 35 lives and 37 wounded mainly at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole.[1] He is now interned in HM Prison Risdon.
Keep your pity....Some of us choose not to be victims. Evil is the problem. There are mean and nasty people the world over. Sometimes I think we have more than our share (particularly this week) but I promise you we do not have a monoploly.
Keep your pity....Some of us choose not to be victims. Evil is the problem. There are mean and nasty people the world over. Sometimes I think we have more than our share (particularly this week) but I promise you we do not have a monoploly.
navara-au
Observer
mightymike said:
That was 11 years ago when we had lacked gun laws. Now we have better gun control hopefully it is a thing of the past.
Here's the 2002 statistics
"Gun Related Murders per 100,000 of population in 2002 (From Sunday Times)
USA 4.08
Canada 0.54
England and Wales 0.12
Scotland 0.12
Japan 0.04
.
Our calculations show that the figure for Australia is 0.25. This means that approx 16 times more Americans die from gun murders than Australians. "
You can have your guns we dont need them.
Scott Brady
Founder
I am very thankful AU is as safe as it is (you are very fortunate), but it has nothing to do with a right to carry or not. AU was very safe (statistically) before gun control. After gun control, murder rates have dropped slightly, but all other violent crime (rape, etc.) have increased, along with non-violent crimes. Your country is geographically isolated, which makes the control of illegal guns much easier. We have the longest unprotected borders in the world.
Again, it is wonderful that you live in such a safe country, but I believe that the demographics, geography and population concentrations in the US require a different approach :beer:
Quote:
The Lott-Mustard Report
John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
Again, it is wonderful that you live in such a safe country, but I believe that the demographics, geography and population concentrations in the US require a different approach :beer:
Quote:
The Lott-Mustard Report
John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
VikingVince
Explorer
just for the sake of balance:ylsmoke:
be sure to to click on the link on the bottom
Ah, the Lott/Mustard Report...
The study uses incorrect and discredited methodology. The results
of any study are influenced by the type of statistical techniques
used by the researchers. The technique used in most of Lott and
Mustard's analyses has been deemed by criminologists and econometricians
since the early 1970s to be inappropriate for this type of study. The
validity of the statistical techniques chosen by Lott and Mustard depend
on the assumption that data used in the study (such as crime rates in
neighboring counties, and crime rates in consecutive years) are not
related to each other. If, however, relationships exist, than false
findings of statistical significance will occur.
Source: Stephen Teret. Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard
Oh, and that whole "study" seems to have been funded by the gun industry.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/lottlink.htm
be sure to to click on the link on the bottom
Ah, the Lott/Mustard Report...
The study uses incorrect and discredited methodology. The results
of any study are influenced by the type of statistical techniques
used by the researchers. The technique used in most of Lott and
Mustard's analyses has been deemed by criminologists and econometricians
since the early 1970s to be inappropriate for this type of study. The
validity of the statistical techniques chosen by Lott and Mustard depend
on the assumption that data used in the study (such as crime rates in
neighboring counties, and crime rates in consecutive years) are not
related to each other. If, however, relationships exist, than false
findings of statistical significance will occur.
Source: Stephen Teret. Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard
Oh, and that whole "study" seems to have been funded by the gun industry.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/lottlink.htm
Scott Brady
Founder
VikingVince said:
Well, looks like anything we read anymore can have questionable results, huh. I would just be very surprised if a law school had questionable (dubious) intentions with its research.
I did not research that study with any depth... Oh well.
VikingVince
Explorer
I should add that I do own guns and usually have one with me when camping, especially if I'm alone. It's a consciousness I can't get away from...and I'm not really proud of it. I grew up in America!
I think the the posts by navara-au (australia) and MountainPete (canada -earlier in the thread) reflect the enormous and significant differences in our individual, societal, and cultural attitudes and consciousness about guns. And the statistics posted by navara-au speak volumes. And our American addiction to our guns is reflected in the powerful gun lobby, which I find a bit distrubing. And as I said...I'm not necessarily proud of my own addiction. I commend the Australians and Canadians.
I think the the posts by navara-au (australia) and MountainPete (canada -earlier in the thread) reflect the enormous and significant differences in our individual, societal, and cultural attitudes and consciousness about guns. And the statistics posted by navara-au speak volumes. And our American addiction to our guns is reflected in the powerful gun lobby, which I find a bit distrubing. And as I said...I'm not necessarily proud of my own addiction. I commend the Australians and Canadians.
Last edited:
Skillet
Adventurer
expeditionswest said:
:iagree:
There will always be "studies" funded by one side or the other with skewed results.
Sometimes we have to draw our own conclusions.
Here is a little tid-bit which might make you think...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869
VikingVince
Explorer
Skillet said:
Don't pity me, my friend.
Are you brandishing your gun as you say that?:gunt: :ylsmoke:
navara-au has a valid point. I think the gun-toting, violent aspect of our culture is rather pitiful. As a society and culture, we would do well if we could move away from that...but I suspect we are "doomed" for some time to come.
DesertRose
Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
Skillet said:
Don't pity me, my friend.
Ibid.
Intelligent discussion and gentleman/womanly dissent and disagreement is the order of the day on this forum, not snarky judgemental misspelled comments lobbed across the waters.
And I certainly will remember your pity next time I'm hiking alone and a man tries to accost me (see my earlier post) - despite your pity, I won't: a) throw rocks at him; b) try to engage him in hand-to-hand combat; or c) try to talk him out of it by asking him if his mother was mean to him as a child.
ROFSheriffHL:
DesertRose
Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
VikingVince said:
I disagree, Vince. I'm gun-toting, but that in itself does not make me violent. How I choose to behave makes me violent or not - not my gun. Besides, I would not need a gun to be violent. I can build a bomb, use a knife, or poison thousands of people through a municiple water system.
Humans are violent creatures - heck, all higher animals - especially primates - are violent at times.
I personally feel it's naive to think peace ever existed in the human experience - nor ever will.
The best we can do is live our lives the best we can, act well toward our fellow man - unless he intends to do us harm, then I really can't say I'd roll over and let myself be a victim.
But that's my choice, and I would not ever make fun or denegrate someone who chooses otherwise (at least publicly):elkgrin: