Skip to comments.Gun Control: The Facts, Figures, And Frustrations
Posted on 04/01/2014 4:13:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When I think of Chicago, my mind goes to Wrigley Field, Michael Jordan and the Sears Tower. Over the last few weeks, I have added something else to this list: gun violence.
Since Friday, 17 people have been shot in the city.
A couple weeks back, on the night of March 11th, ten shootings occurred in Chicago. Just to be clear, that is over the course of ONE NIGHT. Only the Chicago Tribune reported on these incidents, resulting in most Americans not even hearing about them.
This is an irresponsible omission; an incredibly disturbing trend; a manifestation of our hyper-desensitized RoboCop society that dismisses ten shootings as just another night in the Windy City.
Have we given up on making society safer? Are we really going to ignore the obvious solution? Isnt it worth letting some guns out of our cold dead hands if it means stopping even one gun-related death?
Shockingly, some say no: gun-toting, ill-informed NRA members who miss the days of the West being wild; brainwashed Fox News viewers with a confederate flag painted on their pickup who need an AR-15 for hunting ducks; and everyone in Florida (joke, laugh).
These people claim that gun control doesnt work. They say that the solution to gun violence is obvious. More guns.And there is one more group politicians who are so afraid of losing reelection that they capitulate to the desires of the gun lobby, brushing aside their constituents and disregarding their interests with a cold shoulder and silent who cares.
The contention is as follows: more guns in the hands of responsible citizens will make our society safer by allowing people to defend themselves and serve as a deterrent for criminals.
Statistically speaking, however, this is a blatant fallacy. States with more gun ownership are in fact less safe than those with less gun ownership.
Logically speaking, it is also quite obvious that more guns are not the answer. When you fight fire with fire, everything goes up in flames.
Opponents of gun control further claim that there is no indication that gun control legislation is effective.
If only we had an example of a country implementing widespread gun control legislation that could set a precedent for the United States...
As it so happens, the Australian government did just that after a mass shooting in 1996 left 35 dead and 20 injured.
The reforms standardized gun laws throughout Australia, prohibiting semi-automatic rifles and resulting in around 700,000 guns destroyed after the worlds largest firearm buyback. Furthermore, gun ownership applicants must have a justifiable reason for owning the type of gun they are seeking (i.e. people cant get assault rifles for hunting small game).
The results of these reasonable changes are astounding.
In 1996, Australias firearm mortality rate was approximately one-quarter of the U.S. rate; today it is less than one-tenth of the U.S. rate (this includes suicides and accidental shootings). If we only consider gun homicide rates, the United States boasts a rate which is a staggering 30 times that of Australias (see below for John Olivers entertaining exposé on these effects).
So why havent we followed in the Aussies footsteps?
There are two problems politicians catering to the gun lobby, and a lack of media responsibility.
The first quandary has a simple solution: our leaders need to demonstrate a willingness to lose reelection in order to do what is best for the people. Many of the Australian lawmakers who voted for gun reform lost their jobs as a result. But their priority was to protect Australian citizens, and if that meant losing office, so be it.
The majority of our Representatives and Senators are too afraid of losing their power to do right by the people, and they need to join the few who are championing the cause regardless of the threat of losing office.
Unfortunately, this is the way of our government, and it is unlikely that it will change in the near future. In the meantime, it is the job of the media to make a meaningful difference.
Newspapers, networks, and online publications have a duty to the American people to report every time there is gun violence. It is omnipresent, happening all over the country, and yet we only hear about it when there is a mass shooting in a public place.
For every Trayvon Martin, there are hundreds like him who go unseen. For every Newtown, there are dozens of cities who suffer from tragic loss of life outside of the public eye.
If every single person was notified of every single shooting, we would surely care enough to change our priorities and bypass the deadlock in Washington. In forcing politicians to support gun control in exchange for our votes, the American people could reclaim the power to shape policy and take the gun lobby out of the equation.
Or perhaps if every American was as adamant about gun control as every parent who has lost a child to gun violence, we wouldnt even be having this discussion.
I especially love the bigotry toward gun owners. If anyone stereotyped minorities the way this fool did, they would be ostracized by liberals for all of eternity.
That second amendment really pisses them off!
Yep. Flaming moron.
One, Australia has few “minorities” and, Two, are getting very nervous about the Muslim invasion. It would behoove them to re-arm the good guys. The boy-fkers have theirs already.
Liberal fantasyland. They should sell tickets.
Thank goodness that guns are illegal in Chicago! Chicago’s murder stats speak louder than anything this clown could possibly write.
Don’t like my guns? Either come and take them or STHU!
IF it says “Annenberg” it means LEFT
Why don’t we compare Chicago and Detroit crime rates to Montpelier VT?
The media relentlessly pounds the issue and the anti-gun lobby is well funded including taxpayer dollars (e.g. "science", "health" care and Bloomberg type nonsense). The culture and effects of gun grabbing is described here: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/Australia.pdf
Gun Confiscation in Australia Not Shown to Reduce Mass Shootings Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence, by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, pulblished in the Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011 I recommend the study to anyone interested in criminology, mass killings, or citizen disarmament. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854 http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/02/gun-confiscation-in-australia-not-shown.html
Australias lecture on gun control not backed by facts
Gun Confiscation in Australia Not Shown to Reduce Mass Shootings
...gun-toting, ill-informed NRA members who miss the days of the West being wild; brainwashed Fox News viewers with a confederate flag painted on their pickup who need an AR-15 for hunting ducks...It's refreshing to see a gun control advocate present a logical, reasoned argument that doesn't rely on ad hominem tactics. Oh, wait...
Gee, I thought Chicago had strict gun laws?
Half of all gun death victims are black males.
Nearly all of those blacks were shot by other blacks, by police or by armed citizens defending themselves.
We don’t have a “gun problem” we have a problems with less than 7% of the population that commits violent crimes and murders using guns.
“One, Australia has few minorities”
You are right—but they do have a few and in a conversation with a friend in Sydney my friend related the nasty habit one of those minorities had of skewering people with spear-like weapons. Australia is a poor example and not only for that reason.
I have become so exasperated with the hard left socialists like this author that I accept they cannot live in an advanced society. Let them secede into their own state—the city-states of SF, NYC, and Chicago. Let them be happy in their worlds but they must leave the rest of us alone.
Only looking at “firearms homicide” is intellectually dishonest. It is overall unjustified homicides that matter. If firearms homicides go down, but overall homicides state the same or go up, you have not gained anything but disarming some of the population.
In Australia the academic concensus is that the gun confiscation did not change the crime rates, in spit of a quick blip up and then down. It is on the same track it was on before the draconian gun laws were put into effect.
Can one of you guys more hep than me explain the hyphen in a man’s name? My stomach is telling me that I think I know the answer but I’m hoping my brain and my stomach are wrong.
I did some analysis of gun violence a few years ago. Using FBI crime statistics, if you take out the gang-on-gang homocides for just the cities of NYC, LA, CHI and a few more cities... The U.S. then has a homocide rate lower than the U.K. Or any country in Europe.
“Kevin Litman-Navarro”? WTF? He’s so de-masculinized he takes a three-word name?
Hey Kev, hate to break this to ya, but guns are absotively posilutely ILLEGAL in Chi-town.
All those shootings are the RESULTS of guns restrictions, genius.
But then you don’t really care, now do you? What you care about is the little gold star you get for writing this dreck and showing your loyalty to the Party.