Almost all US States have the Right to Carry Firearms,
either openly or concealed.

Panther wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 5:39pm:



Even though America has the worlds highest rate of gun ownership its very rare for guns to actually be used as a defense.

If guns were a practical defense against violence you would expect to see a lower rate of murder and assault in america than than places with tighter gun restrictions.
This is obviously not the case as America has by far the highest murder rate of the developed  world.

You may argue that many of these gun deaths were defensive in nature
I.e A person got shot by the person they were intending to mug.

This is not evident in the statistics though.
For every 1 person killed in a defensive homicide situation, 31 people are murdered.

The most comprehensive studies were done by Kleck and McDowell, and concluded that defensive firearm use prevented about .02% of crimes from occurring.

As soon as you have a firearm present at the scene of a crime, regardless of whether to victim or attacker is in possession, you have a much higher chance of a fatality.

Know what the best thing to do is if you get mugged?

Faint.   You stop presenting a threat, and because you cant be communicated with usually the thug will just run off.

As President Obama has been lauding Australia's gun laws it seems that this might be a good place to post this.

There have been many claims that the Gun Laws have stopped any mass shootings in Australia and that therefore they are a success.

The Lyndt Cafe and Monis proved that they are a failure.
All the ingredients were there for a massacre.

Monis had a firearm - the laws didn't stop him from acquiring it.

Monis' firearm was prohibited by the gun laws - he still got it.
his firearm was illegally modified - the gun laws didn't stop the modification.

Monis didn't have a firearms licence - he didn't comply with the gun laws.

Monis took hostages - the gun laws didn't stop him.

Monis murdered one person - the gun laws didn't stop him.

Monis had it in his power to murder many more people - the gun laws didn't stop him, he was stopped by men with guns.

Anyone care to refute the above?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Aug 11^th, 2015 at 8:12am:


It has no bearing whatsoever what Pwesiden Barrack Hussein Obama believes or doesn't believe. American Constitutional Law is the Law of the Land, & is the definitive source of the Right to Bear Arms,

not

Pwesiden Barrack Hussein Obama.

What the "Lame Duck" Obama thinks is of no recourse whatsoever.



And this discussion (thread), with all due respect, is about Disarming America, not a comparison of 'suggested' law from the USA versus the 'actual' law of Australia, pro or con, success or failure. 

If you wish to discuss issues related to USA vs. Australian Gun Laws, which would be fun, create a new thread, or if you wish, I'd be more than happy to create a new thread specifically for that purpose.

I already took the liberty of creating such a Thread    HERE (Link)

|dev|null wrote on Aug 11^th, 2015 at 11:26am:


The supreme court has struck down numerous laws that violate the 2A when challenged in court.

Just look at concealed carry in the last 25 years, not many states had it in the late 80's now just about all do thanks to people going to the supreme court and having bans struck down as a violation of constitutional rights.

The USA has reduced firearm homicides by over 50% since the late 1980's, we could say firearm homicide rates fell by allowing more concealed carry permits.

Statistics show in the USA people with concealed carry permits have lower crime rates than those people without concealed carry permit.

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 11^th, 2015 at 11:46am:



Not true. States witch introduced concealed carry laws actually experienced an increase in many violent crimes. John J. Donohue researched the issue and his conclusion are here:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

The fundamental question is thus.

If easy access to guns makes people safer, why do countries with easy access to guns have higher murder rates than countries without easy access to guns?

Panther wrote on Aug 11^th, 2015 at 12:06pm:


More guns do not create less crime. It creates more crime. please follow the link!

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/right-carry-laws-revisiting-link-between-guns-crime

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RTC-laws-and-murder-rates-nber.org_.jpg

Right-to-carry laws were found to be associated with higher rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary and larceny.

In each of seven crime categories, at least one of the four estimates used by the authors suggests that RTC laws increase crime at the 0.10 level of significance, with murder, rape and larceny estimates reaching significance at the 0.05 level.

Eleven of 28 estimates suggest that RTC laws increase aggravated assault 8%, and the authors note these results may actually be understated: “Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun-aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33%.”

Rising crime rates were observed prior to the passage of RTC laws, and these in turn would “likely lead to a bias in favor of finding a deterrent effect.” However, excluding early and late adopters as well as Georgia and Florida, both of which were outliers, rates of murder and other violent crimes continued to rise strongly after the passage of RTC laws.

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 11^th, 2015 at 12:31pm:


Not true.

Australia has increased gun ownership to our highest ever levels while gun crimes have reduced to their lowest ever levels.
In Australia more guns has resulted in less gun crimes.

John Lott also wrote on this subject, more guns equals less crime.