Rape is the reason people should have guns?And yet, today people
talk about banning abortion and birth control.
"Gun bans take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and therefore
embolden criminals"Bummer, you were doing so well until you
stopped citing statistics and started running wide with your own interpretation
of them. You don't know that Australia's gun ban led to an increase
in these incidents, that is just as much of an assumption as the one you wrote
in to complain about. So no, statistics don't lie, but you've shown us
how to lie with statistics.
The trouble with "statistics" is that you can find them to support just
about any position you want to take. perhaps the writter will tell us where he
got his "statistics" so that his comment may be properly evaluated.
It took me about two minutes with Google to discover that the
"statistics" used in this letter don't tell the whole story about
U.S. vs. Australian violent crime rates. Trends in violent crime, how they are
reported and how the statistics are compiles vary greatly around the world.
This is a highly complex subject.There's no shortage of right
wing web sites pumping this "Australian rape rates went up after their gun
ban" meme, but none of them address long term trends or differences in how
these crimes are reported through the years.The only honest thing
you can say based on a comparison of violent crime statistics between nations is
that it is unclear what effect gun control legislation has had in Australia, and
it is equally unclear how similar legislation, if adopted here, might effect the
Well, if Stats dont lie, here is some moreFrom the Drudge reportAnd today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only
reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The
Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides
fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found
that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent.In the 18
years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres -- each with
more than four victims -- causing a total of 102 deaths.There has not been
a single massacre in that category since 1996.Few Australians would
deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.
Nobody in power is talking about banning guns They only want to ban the sale of
certain types of guns, which is entirely different.
Could ypu give a reference for your statistics? The U N rape numbers on
Wikipedia tell a different story about rape. It lists the United States as
having a rape rate of 27.3 per 100,000 women, while Australia has a rate of 8.1
per 100,000 women.Gun controlled Canada has a minisule rape rate of
1.7 per 100,000.(All stats are from 2010 numbers.)
"Statistics don't lie" is truly one of the most uninformed and
uneducated statements "ever" made on this thread. Statistics do lie.
In fact they lie more than they tell the truth. This happens for many reasons
and the complexity of real life situations is one of the prime reasons they lie.
They don't measure what they say they are measuring. If you want a good
primer of statistics and the value and problems of statistics read Nate Silvers
new book.Statistics have value and can be valuable, even in cases
predictive. However, there use is very tricky and the blanket statement that
statistics don't lie is about as far from the truth as one could get.
""Statistics don't lie"But sometimes they
don't tell the whole truth either. I was forwarded a note from an aunt of
mine which made similar clames... problem is when you look at the charts
provided, one quickly notices the r2 numbers. These numbers denote the
confidence level in multi-varient analysis. The numbers were increadably low
for the corrilations - meaning the level of confidence in those numberes or
direct causal impact was really loose. In our work, .8-.9 is a
minimum to make a decicsion on. The one number, deaths by knife or other sharp
object had a rating of .11. In a statistical realm, that is a garbage
number.The other thing with these numbers listed is none were crimes
per 1,000, but just raw data, which had no growth in population factored in.
They are very misleading.So yes, sometimes numbers don't lie,
but they don't tell the whole truth either.
"Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually,
Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun
law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government
agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and
peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007,
the most recent year for which official figures are available.Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than
murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997,
firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently,
firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to
figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more
than half since enactment of the gun law..."(Factcheck)
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure! Any ban on the ability of the
citizen to defend themselves will lead to governmental abuse. Ask the Jews in
Germany (those still alive) what they might have done had Hitler not banned
private firearms.. Ask the dissenters in China what they might have done had
Mao not banned private firearms.. Ask the ones banished to the Gulag in Russia
what they might have done had Stalin not banned private ownership of guns. And
no, I don't condone mass murder in the schools or malls, suicides, or any
other non-security or hunting use of firearms. I merely point out that the
purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that a corrupt government could not
enslave its citizens.
One of the first and fundamental things I learned in my statistics class is that
CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. Unfortunately, most people who cite
statistics to "prove" their point forget this basic principle.
Re:DougSThe Jews could've held off the Germany army, when many
other countries couldn't?The facts:As World War I
drew to a close, the new Weimar Republic government banned nearly all private
gun ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles and mandated that all guns
and ammunition "be surrendered immediately." The law was loosened in
1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens "of undoubted
reliability" (in the law's words) but not "persons who are
itinerant like Gypsies." In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became
significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and
gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was
expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited
from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.
I've said it before; stats are almost useless in this argument because
everyone has some that support their position.Instead of changing numbers, I
think we have to change attitudes first, and the way to do that may be to make a
legislated statement that says there is a limit to how far the secocnd amendment
can be pushed.
It the words of the great Mike Ditka "Statistics are for idiots".
DougS, Sorry, but arguments such as yours, commonly made, only
illustrate that paranoia and emotion are what drive them - not rational and
reasonable thinking.We do not live in a dictatorship, as we are
painfully reminded everyday by gridlock in Washington. Should a
tyrranical government suddenly arise here in the US, and turn against the good
people, our guns will do little to protect us from their air force. So in the
spirit of the Second Amendment, I suppose the good and righteous potential
defenders among us should be acquiring anti-aircraft rockets?
Australia uses a very different system for gathering crime statistics than that
one used in the US. In the US, rape statistics are based on police reports. In
Australia, even calling in a threat counts as 'rape.' The correlation
described here is based on false assumptions.
@DougS"I merely point out that the purpose of the 2nd amendment
was to ensure that a corrupt government could not enslave its citizens."That arms race was lost a century ago. I have yet to see small arms fire
bring down drones, destroy nerve gas or protect against being heated to the same
temperature as the surface of the sun for a small amount of time.If
you think an AR-15 is going to help you against the weapons your government can
wield prepare to be very briefly disappointed should you want to stand against
Austraila rate #43America rated #57Israeli rape rate (#6) is
far FAR higher than Autraila -- and have guns.BTW - Islamic contries
have the lowest Rape rate in the world.=========Blue
Ribbon comment of the day goes to:SteveDNorth Salt Lake, UTIt the words of the great Mike Ditka "Statistics are for
idiots".9:41 a.m. Jan. 24, 2013
It is amazing to me how many posters become statisticians when the numbers do
not support their narrative. Yet many of these same posters often cite
headlines and anecdotal information to support their beliefs. They quote polls,
and very selective stats to promote their worldview all the time. Then they
condemn the writer for drawing a conclusion. One poster even sited some dreaded
statistics to draw a totally opposite conclusion. My favorite is the
misdirection of talking about "suicide rates" or "Gun Violence".
These sneaky little terms that make what they say somewhat true but not
applicable to the argument at hand.I suspect that the resultant
"truths" lies not only in the statistics but also in the questions being
asked, the language we use, and the conclusions we want.I support
keeping arms from those who are a danger to society. I support the idea of
securing our firearms against theft and the subsequent misuse. In my opinion,
misguided gun advocates making showboat displays of their rights do more damage
to our cause than any anti-gun advocate does.I believe that the
strongest argument for our 2nd amendment rights is the original stated
purpose...to prevent government tyranny.
Ryan, when you misspelled my name in the first word of your letter, I
immediately drifted toward the assumption that much of what you wrote might also
be less than accurate. Rather than point out the problems, I'll just
encourage readers to look through the many good posts, including that of
JoeBlow. (By the way, I won't be responding to you in a follow-up letter to
the editor out of fear that it might be edited in the same dreadful way that my
original letter was edited.)
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed;" So
people have the right to bear arms inorder to have a well regulated
militia....where does it talk about tyranny? And if it was about preventing
internal tyranny why doesn't it say so? Or do you simply appprove of a
broad interpretaion of "the security of a state" like the broad
interpretaion of congress shall have the right to regulate commerece?
Statistics may not lie.But some people do.
DougSOakley, UT Ask the Jews in Germany (those still alive)
what they might have done had Hitler not banned private firearms.============ So you believe shipping guns to Jews would've
stopped the Nazi invasion of Europe?FYI - Hitler didn't ban
guns or pass euthansia laws.That was the Weimar Republic (German Liberals)
before Hitler.Once Hitler [and ultra-conservative] rose to power, he used
and exploited those laws to his advantage.That's one reason why
- though I support some gun restricitions - I do not support and out-right
ban.Because, some future President [Right-wing or Left] like Hitler
who was elected Chancellor might have thugs target the Capitol, blaming it on
Communists or other Liberals, and declare a National State of Emergency,
implement Emergency Executive Powers, suspend Congress [as Hitler did the
Reichstag], and become the American Furher.9/11/01 was too close for
Artcle 1 Section 8 of the Constitution: "To provide for calling forth the
Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions"Note that the purpose of militias is to suppress
insurrection, not to foment insurrection.Article 8 section 2 makes
the President the commander in chief of the militias at any time they are called
to serve the country.If you read the constitution you will find no
example of militias being authorized to act against the government.
Pagan Says,"Rape is the reason people should have guns?And yet, today people talk about banning abortion and birth control."I am so offended by this I can't even write something that
doesn't get screened out!Are you really suggesting that having
abortion and birth control available for victims of rape is better than having
guns to prevent rape? You make Akins look good.Where is
the outrage on this? I would like to think you all just missed the implication,
but....I oppose rape and support the use of guns to stop/prevent
rape. Same for assault, and murder.I leave you all with a final
thought"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a
subject." And may I add an unarmed woman is a 'victim'.
Enough already, if the US bans all guns, I will buy you lunch. The real question
is what will you do to lower mass shootings, statistics aside?
To "Truthseeker" so what you are saying is that unless a murder is with
a gun, it isn't as important. If homicide rates are down the same in
Australia as they are in the US, then clearly guns are not the problem. Both
countries had fewer homicides, and apparently guns are not the reason.For the rest of you liberals that think that removing guns will solve our
problem, explain why Mexico and most of central and south america have HIGHER
gun homicide rates than the US when they have even stricter gun laws?The mass murder rate in the US peaked in 1929. Some liberals say that was
because fully automatic weapons were banned then. WRONG. Fully automatic
weapons were not banned from civilians untin 1986.Again how do you
explain the high gun homicide rates in other countries that have more
restrictive gun laws than the US?
Statistics DO lie if used for unrelated issues. The incidents of guns preventing
rape, theft and assault has to so miniscule that it is virtually a statistical
non-factor. Statistics also lie when making comparisons with a nation which has
1/14th the population of the United States. To be fair, show the rates per
Re:pragmatistferlife"where does it talk about tyranny? And if it
was about preventing internal tyranny why doesn't it say so? Or do you
simply appprove of a broad interpretaion of "the security of a state"
like the broad interpretaion of congress shall have the right to regulate
commerece?"We are so lucky to have the thoughts of the framers
of Constitution and the original Bill of Rights compiled into neat little
volumes called the Federalist papers. Try reading them to answer your own
question about tyranny.Education is a wonderful thing.
FYI, I do not fear our military if the government decides to enslave us.. I
believe the move will be more insidious just as politicians have done for years.
Any takeover of a country depends on ground troops occupying an area, not on
bombs. While there may be some "politically" appointed flag officers
who may order their troops to fire on citizens, I feel they will be negated by
others who refuse to shoot at their relatives and neighbors. I also fear
the type of person who accepts loss of liberty for "supposed" security..
Roland KayserCottonwood Heights, UTArtcle 1 Section 8 of the
Constitution: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"Note
that the purpose of militias is to suppress insurrection, not to foment
insurrection.Article 8 section 2 makes the President the commander
in chief of the militias at any time they are called to serve the country.If you read the constitution you will find no example of militias being
authorized to act against the government.11:49 a.m. Jan. 24, 2013=========== Great comment!I've always enjoyed
your insight -- but that one was a Grand-Slam.
Re:RedshirtPlease point out where factcheck stated that only murders
with firearms are important.Provide an example of a country awash in
firearms, with lax firearm laws that has a low homicide, firearm death rate.Harvard researchers found that within the U.S., comparing rural to rural
and urban to urban areas, higher homicide and higher firearms deaths in places
with more liberal gun laws. But, looking worldwide the research is
less clear-cut.Other factors can contribute to higher homicide rates such
as poverty, gangs, low apprehension and conviction rates of criminals, and
wide-spread corruption. We can't ignore the fact that Mexico gets many of
its illegal guns from the U.S, which is why we need to limit /track gun sales in
U.S. to eliminate straw purchasers. Honduras has one of the highest
homicide rates in the world and historically lax gun laws.
Grundle, I would like to know your response to Roland Kayser's
comment above, in which he provides a direct quote from the Constitution stating
that a well-regulated militia, led by the president, is intended to quell
insurrection rather than encourage it. That blows a giant hole in your
"protect us from government tyranny argument" and I'm wondering how
you square those two viewpoints.I've heard a number of credible
and balanced legal analysts become quite irritable at the suggestion that the
2nd Amendment was ever intended to be used against our government, saying there
is no support for that point of view anywhere in the Constitution. If the
framers of the Constitution felt this way, why isn't it in the document?
To "Truthseeker" in your 8:39 a.m. Jan. 24, 2013 comment you only quote
fire-arm statistics. If all homicides were equally important, why do you only
go after the one statistic that would obviously change when your remove guns?
If you cared about all homicides, why do you only focus on homicides with guns
Just looked at the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is Australia's
national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. Homicide
and kidnapping each occur at rates of fewer than five per 100,000 per year
Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with
623 per 100,000 in 1996. The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Rates
have declined by 38 percent since 2001, to 86 per 100,000 per year. The
rate of kidnapping remained between three and four per 100,000 per year from
1996 to 2007. The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which
includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in
1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest
recorded (since 1996). The rate of recorded sexual assault increased
between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.Australia has not banned firearms only semi automatic firearms. There was a
recent announcement that the total private firearms is now the same as prior to
the buy back.
The Australians like the English have to store their firearms in a gun safe.
They register all firearms on a national register. To have a gun license you
must be a member of a gun club and have had a crime check.The
murders in Australia are Crime to Crime. Drive by shooting make the national
newspaper they are so rare.
"We are so lucky to have the thoughts of the framers of Constitution and the
original Bill of Rights compiled into neat little volumes called the Federalist
papers. Try reading them to answer your own question about tyranny.Education is a wonderful thing."Yes it is isn't it,
Grundle. But of course the essays that comprise The Federalist were not the work
of all the framers of the Constitution as you imply, just three, Madison,
Hamilton, and Jay. Of course, they even had disagreements about the meaning of
the Constitution. Oh well. But, yes, education is a wonderful thing.
Re:Mark and EmajorThe Federalist papers were the essays of many of
our founding fathers. That the constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights were
not penned by the likes of Thomas Jefferson does not invalidate his
contributions to the document and the founding of our country or it's
articles.That being said... The Federalist No. 47 "The
Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among
Its Different Parts" by Madison, deals specifically with the idea of
preventing government tyranny. So does The Federalist No. 10 by Thomas
Jefferson. They did indeed speak of the need for resistance and protections
against all enemies foreign and domestic. However, I think you know
all this already. It just isn't fitting into your narrative.This idea of protecting ourselves against a government run amok was preeminent
in their purpose and thought. Yes, there were different approaches but all with
the same aim.
Grundle, federalist # 10 was penned by James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson. The
essays that comprise the Federalist were written by three people, Madison and
Hamilton wrote most of them, Jay added a few others. They were not written by
"many" of the founders. Yes, again, education is a wonderful thing. What is my "narrative", that you claim? That people should be
knowledgable about what they comment on? In Federalist # 10, Madison
does indeed talk about controlling factions that may be harmful to the
government. He argues that the way to do this is through a large and powerful
government (strong federal government over state government) that has the
ability to regulate these factions. Indeed, according to Madison, in
Federalist 10: The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms
the principal task of modern Legislation.Yes, education is a
Mark Twain once said there are 3 types of lies; lies, darned lies, &
statistics.I fail to see the point of this article esp when
numbers/data can be manipulated easier than words.
Just out of curiosity - why is there so much push to ban assault weapons when
the vast majority of firearm deaths are caused by handguns? What's the
point? More people are killed by baseball bats than assault weapons.Why do some believe that "if we save just one life, it's worth any
cost"? There are a lot of things we could do that would be much easier to do
and would save more lives than banning assault weapons.
@DougSRight so you need assault rifles to protect yourself from the
government but you know that government forces would never fire on the populace?
That does not make much sense to me.
PopsNORTH SALT LAKE, UTJust out of curiosity - why is there so much
push to ban assault weapons when the vast majority of firearm deaths are caused
by handguns? What's the point? More people are killed by baseball bats than
assault weapons.=======Handguns and baseball bats [which
is believe is an erronious lie - in 28 years of living in Utah, I've never
heard of anyone ever being beat to death with one] even IF they are used, maime
more than kill - and killing is rare.Assualt rilfes are extremely
lethal, they are designed to kill, they shoot high velocity, high capacity
rounds - not low capatiy, low velocity rounds.That's why
MASSACRES occur with assault rifles.Drive bys are a one at a time
I agree with Doug S. and sadly we are not all that far from government tyranny.
Guns don't kill, and numbers don't lie.... its the people who use them
that kill and lie.Untrained people should use neither.