Swords Banned In Australia

Cruentus

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
130
Location
At an OP in view of your house...
Angelusmortis,

Although your opinions are well thought out, I think that you might be neglecting a few major parts of the picture.

#1. It's not the american obsession with guns that is the problem; it is our obsaession with violence. And this stems from some very deep rooted societal problems that we imbedded in our structure. Start a new thread, and I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail. But essentially I believe the theory pioneered by Col. David Grossman; and that theory is that we have been breeding aggressive sociopaths in the U.S. for quite sometime. We have done this through many factors, some of them listed as follows: Desensatization to and glorification of violence through media and entertainment outlets, Desparity among the poor to upper middle class created through wage slavery and a profit and property centered society, and fear-based minority (as in wealthy minority) control over the majority. Essentially our capitalistic structure works off of fear based incentives and desparity and wage entrapment. Add this to a continued desensitization to violence through media and entertainment, war-mongering and fear mongering by our power structure, etc., and you have a recipe for a very violent society.

I need to do a little more research on this part of it, but it would seem that on the surface, this recipe is concocted again and again by prosperious societies that have great imballances in wealth where a few people control the masses. Example: the Roman empire and the middle ages were pretty violent times too.

The point is, the problem isn't owning or carrying weapons or not. The problem is the culture of violence that we have created. If we want to be a less violent society, we need to undo this by making structural changes. Whether packing heat is legal or not has little to do with this.

2. Part of the problem that we have is too much control of the masses by a wealthy minority. Taking away every citizens right to protect themselves only propigates this problem, rather then contributing to the solution.

3. Although we are social beings and need each other to survive and prosper, we are also thinking, individual beings. A balance exists, and must exist, between the two. That said, we can strive for a peaceful society as a means for self-defense. However, the first line of defense starts with the individual. No government or society can fully protect the individual, nor is it societies responsability to provide that first line of defense. So, wherever you live, it is YOUR responsability to defend yourself and your family first and foremost, not your neighbors, or the police, or society as a whole. To adequetly defend oneself, one needs to be able to safely equalize and deter a threat. And, at the moment, the only thing that can safely equalize and deter a gun wielding assailent is another gun. So, by taking away the individuals right to carry ANY tool for self-defense that acts to equalize a threat, you are essentially infringing on the individuals rights and responsibilities of self-defense.

4. In our violent culture, taking away the individuals ability of self-defense will only propigate more violence by societies preditors. This has been proven time and time again; there is a great amount of historical precidence for this.

5. It is also important to our structure that we have the ability to overthrow the people in power. This is something that no one wants to talk about, because the people in power essentially don't want to be overthrown. Conservative think tanks and PR machines in this country have done a wonderful job convincing us americans to be apathetic and unthinking, and not to try to rock the boat or make changes in our country, especially if they would effect the profits and power structures. We as people need the ability to overthrow the powers that be; hopefully we can do this through our wonderful system laid out for us. Electing new people to office is an example of a peaceful overthrowing of the power structure. However, there is always that lingering possibility that our powers that be STOP allowing themselves to be led by the people, and start trying to impose a violent rule on the people. We need the rights to have firearms if this were to occur.

6. Inherent in our structure is the rights for people to own, or not to own, property. Society should not revolve around property ownership and assets american society seems to today, but having the right is necessary for a free society. If our rights to owning property are infringed, then we no longer live in a free society. Banning weapons infringes on these property rights.

7. Last thing that no one thinks about: Firearms are a part of American culture in the same way that traditional Japanese swords are a part of Japanese culture. Most people would agree that it would be stupid and oppressive if the Japanese government took away all swords, or if the Philippine Government took away all balisongs, or if a government outlawed the study of a martial art. In the same sense, Americans, for better or for worse, invented the pistol and the many types of guns, and it is a part of our history and cultural identity. To outright "ban" them or take them away would be oppressive.

Conclusion: SO...whether it is Australia and swords, or firearms in the U.S., weapons restrictions and bans are simply not the answer. They infringe on peoples rights, and they propigate current problems and create new ones instead of solving them. If the deeper societal problems of violence are fixed, people won't feel the need to own and carry weapons, violence will occur less, and the problem that a weapons ban aims to fix will be solved.

Paul
 

Bammx2

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
786
Reaction score
18
Location
London England
ok....
lets forget carring a knife for defense.
How about....
carrying a knife because I want too?
I don't owe you, or anybody else, an explaination as to why.
I'm not a criminal,never have been,therefore I will not be treated as such.
No matter how psychic the police think they are.
I have carried a pocket knife for almost 30 years and I have NEVER used one in violoence.
Hell....I have actually had my life SAVED and SAVED anothers with a pocket knife.
But because of these moronic laws..if the same thing happened here in the UK....someone would die.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
What do you think of this Paul? Its a very interesting article about violence in America..

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

Without the deceptive comfort of myths, we are forced to confront reality. Liberals must face the fact that despite billions spent on social programs, changes to make the justice system more "fair," and new gun-control laws, the homicide rate doubled since the 1960s. Conservatives must face the fact that despite continuing family breakup, fatherless boys, decaying schools, and loss of respect for human life, the homicide rate fell by one-third in the 1990s. Advocates of drug legalization must face the fact that this fall in homicide occurred as the "war" on drugs continued. Opponents of violent films and video games must face the fact that as these increased, homicide as well as school violence fell, despite highly publicized shootings. Conversely, liberals must admit that the recent fall in homicide was associated with three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty, while conservatives must admit that the fall in homicide was associated with low unemployment and a strong economy.
 

Cruentus

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
130
Location
At an OP in view of your house...
Tgace said:
What do you think of this Paul? Its a very interesting article about violence in America..

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

I have read similar articles and studies; this one sums up a lot of data pretty well. I think that there are a number of factors here:

#1. It would appear that there is a correlation between violence and economic factors; specifically wealth imbalance and unemployment rates.

#2. It would appear that there is no positive correlation at all between restrictive weapon and gun laws, and violence. And if one digs deeped, one will find that worldwide it would appear that when restrictive weapons laws are passed, violent crime rates rise.

#3. One thing to take into consideration; although we saw a slight drop in crime in the 90's, the homicide rate having dropped as much as it did had more to do with more effecient medical responses then a decrease in violence. People are still trying to kill each other; it is just that EMS arrives and revives a lot better then it used too.

#4. It would appear that given our economic levels (being the richest country) our violent crime/murder/suicide rates should be much lower then they are. Sure, we are not the worst, but when one considers our economic status as a country, we are pretty violent as a nation.

#5. I don't buy from this article that the death penalty is working as a deterant; other studies have condridicted that claim.

bleblebleep...that's all [for now] folks!

Paul
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
Tulisan said:
#1. It's not the american obsession with guns that is the problem; it is our obsaession with violence.

<snip>

Essentially our capitalistic structure works off of fear based incentives and desparity and wage entrapment. Add this to a continued desensitization to violence through media and entertainment, war-mongering and fear mongering by our power structure, etc., and you have a recipe for a very violent society.
Here here. When one examines our main sources of entertainment in the US, the media hooks and the meat of the advertising industry, it is not difficult to discern a distinct pattern.

Tulisan said:
The point is, the problem isn't owning or carrying weapons or not. The problem is the culture of violence that we have created. If we want to be a less violent society, we need to undo this by making structural changes. Whether packing heat is legal or not has little to do with this.

2. Part of the problem that we have is too much control of the masses by a wealthy minority. Taking away every citizens right to protect themselves only propigates this problem, rather then contributing to the solution.
Imbalance of power is a recurring problem in our world and it's interesting that it is always temporary and often leads to disaster. However, as long as money, sex, power and violence are glorified and rewarded, they will always be sought after, one way or the other.

Tulisan said:
3. No government or society can fully protect the individual, nor is it societies responsability to provide that first line of defense.
Yes, and I'm sure it's not what they want you to believe, yet it is the undeniable truth. If you're involved as a victim in crime, no cop (God bless them) can EVER be there before YOU are.

Tulisan said:
It is also important to our structure that we have the ability to overthrow the people in power. This is something that no one wants to talk about, because the people in power essentially don't want to be overthrown.
Nor do they care to actually take the initiative TO overthrow the government. The American mentality is that this is something that must be done in OTHER countries - never ours.

Tulisan said:
Conservative think tanks and PR machines in this country have done a wonderful job convincing us americans to be apathetic and unthinking, and not to try to rock the boat or make changes in our country, especially if they would effect the profits and power structures.
Yes! Just look at all we have to distract us today - cable television, cellular phones, PDAs, videogames in the home and even portable ones, the internet (snicker), movies. Gadzooks! When do we ever find time to think for ourselves?!?

Tulisan said:
Electing new people to office is an example of a peaceful overthrowing of the power structure. However, there is always that lingering possibility that our powers that be STOP allowing themselves to be led by the people, and start trying to impose a violent rule on the people. We need the rights to have firearms if this were to occur.
I think this is already happening. I don't think our voting system works anymore and that corruption has infiltrated the voting process, hence our need to obtain and maintain private firearms ownership are strongest right now.

Tulisan said:
Conclusion: SO...whether it is Australia and swords, or firearms in the U.S., weapons restrictions and bans are simply not the answer. They infringe on peoples rights, and they propigate current problems and create new ones instead of solving them. If the deeper societal problems of violence are fixed, people won't feel the need to own and carry weapons, violence will occur less, and the problem that a weapons ban aims to fix will be solved.
While I agree with you, we all must remember that there is no panacea to end violence but a greater personal investment into the culture by each member of it is the key to the greatest transition a society can make.

I don't think the end to violence comes from the end of a gun nor edge of a knife ... yet, their presence on both sides of the line is essential, IMVVHO.
 
A

Angelusmortis

Guest
Whoever made the point about education hit the nail on the head. Cultural issues have always been at the fore front of criminal behaviour with relation to wealth imbalance, un-employment, lack of opportunity, poor education, but these are also issues that are ongoing in human society, and wouldn't change in the next 100 years if you threw all the money available at them. I would rather have weapon availability regulated in countries where they do have a culture of violence, or a blossuming one.

Bammx2 I couldn't care less what you think you owe me or don't, I have the right to my opinion, and you are very definately the exception that proves the rule. There is an obvious divide in the opinion as to whether there ought to be regulations for weapons/samurai swords. I come from a culture where there is regulation, and although it's massively on the increase, it's not as perpetual as it is in the US. We don't have the right to bear arms in our constitution, neither do we really want/need it. Time will tell in Victoria as to whether it's successful or not.

Still don't buy the "suicide gun deaths" either. I go on facts and figures made available to us in early 2000, from our own local force as a comparison in gun related deaths between the UK and the US. You gonna tell me that ALL gun deaths for that year were suicides? Your country has a none regulated, easily available gun culture, and you as a nation have problems that occur as a result of that. Taking the guns away, and making them much more difficult to obtain will "help" combat that, making it less and less socially acceptable to use. But, most Americans have always been unwilling to accept that, touting either things like, "guns are in-animate objects", "guns don't kill people, people do." Well yes...They do, with guns. Same with swords. Until this cultural revolution occurs to change attitudes, arming absolutely everyone is a terrifying prospect, I've never felt the need to carry a weapon, even having lived in some seriously dodgy areas, a lot of this is also down to national paranoia. Let the Aussies ban them without licence. No body is saying destroy every single blade and never ever seeing them again. The approach would be to remove them from general sale, and those that want one would need a reason and a licence, subject to them not having a criminal record/history of mental instability. Nobody has an issue with ciggarettes or booze being readily available to kids, admittedly problems still exist there, that isn't in dispute, but until as a species we realise our potential and make the necessary cultural changes, then there has to be something to protect the voting majority. The good thing about laws is that they can be repealed, changed or amended when those attitudes do change.
 
M

MisterMike

Guest
Angelusmortis said:
You guys have a national obsession with guns, that verges on the irresponsible from what I hear. ...... The rest of the world doesn't have this nonsensical "right to bear arms" bs.

What obsession? Traditions like hunting? The right to personal protection?

About as nonsensical as the Constitution of this great country, which by no surprise was written after we left England.
 

Bammx2

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
786
Reaction score
18
Location
London England
Angelusmortis....

I am sorry if you think I meant anything towards you.It was a generalisation.
I have a right to my opinion as well as my privacy.
and my opinion is...I don't have to explain myself to anyone.
I don't hurt anyone.I don't coerce anyone to do bad things.I don't break laws.
And in general,that is all that needs to be known about ANYONE.
And to be fair Angelusmortus....
It is rather impossible to get true emotions over the internet,so I apologise if anyone takes anything I say personally.
But what annoys me more than anything else....
is the fact that some people,of ALL opinions, try to say "what I do is fine for everyone"!
BULL.
It's not! I like weapons of all sorts.
Doesn't mean every frikken lunatic should have access to them and every law abiding citizen should have to jump through hoops just for the privelage...and yes,its a privelage.
Because the criminals are the ONLY ones who will dodge those hoops and when they get caught,its AFTER they have killed a "hoop jumper".
So.....
where does this end?
when you have your way or I have mine?
We are both right and both wrong.
Is there a middle ground?
Is it possible to find it without giving any single entity total control?
I don't want yours and you don't want mine.
Can we do it as a human race without killing each other because we don't like the other guys opinion?
Personally....
I might not like what you have to say,but I'll fight for your right to have those opinions....if you will fight for mine.

Angelus...this is not an attack on your person. I agree with much of what you have to say,the only difference between me and other people such as yourself....
I have lived and taught in the UK for 5 years now and will continue to do so for quite some time...how long have the others lived in the US to form an honest opinion? Holidays don't count
I know the media is a lot to blame for the "discussions" we have as people....

I salute those who make the attempts just the same!


:asian:
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Just wanted to agree with a couple of the posters--try and guess which ones--about our having built a culture of violence. And it isn't just guns: our cars and our driving habits, our obsessive and lunatic fascination with, "development," our disrespect for poor people and for good manners, our nutbar fetishization of work, all contribute to the problem. In a sense, guns are indeed just the tools we use to express all that.

But the murder and assault rate declined in the 1990s, in part, because the number of males aged 16-24 (the most likely to commit these crimes by far) declined. Fact is, the gun and sword stuff--it's a guy thing. And yet people laugh at Freud.

The fantasy that having a gun, preferably a big--handgun--will protect you is just that, a fantasy. A story: few years ago, I'm in the locker room, changing. A minister who trains there comes in....also there was a guy I'll call Ralph....lovely guy, cop, recently got onto a SWAT team. As their sniper.

Minister says, "Hey Ralph...I wanted to ask your advice. I'm thinking about getting a gun for my house...what do you recommend?" Me being a jerk, I mutter..."Get a shotgun, if you absolutely have to." Ralph says, "Yeah, good advice...get a shotgun." Minister says no, he wants a handgun. Ralph asks if he's used a gun before...minister says no, Ralph says, OK, well, try getting a used police .38 revolver...they're cheapish, they're reliable, and you won't have to do a lot of maintenance....minister says no, he's thinking about an automatic...and the conversation goes on till the guy says that he's going to get a Glock 19.

Much of this stuff isn't about self-defense, or hunting, or target shooting. It's about why I quit paintball the third time out, when I found out the idiot next to me had a laser scope on his squirt gun, and we subsequently found out he'd jacked the muzzle velocity up to three times what was allowed. (I suck at paintball anyway.) It's about men's fetishization of their toys, in other words.

I mean, admit it. You need home defense? Get a 12-gauge, load it with birdshot, go to a range and shoot it a few times, take a safety class. Get a trigger lock, discipline your kids, you're good to go. You want to hunt? Get a good over-and-under Marlin or whatever, take classes, buy a license, follow the rules....good to go. Target practice, or just recreational shooting and competition? No problemo. Perfectly legal, perfectly moral.

But fighting for the right to keep, say, a .45 Desert Eagle with a laser scope in every room for home defense? To have nine AK variants, and one o'them cut-down CAR-15s? A Light Fifty? C'mahn. This has nothing to do with self-defense, or sport, or target shooting. It's Boys With Toys.

Which may very well be fine...always in favor of fun. But don't lie to yourself about what you're doing--or the fact that it's personally and socially dangerous. And don't make up stats and facts to justify (or conceal) the fact that some people like to caress their...gun.

Swords, though...are they actually banned, or are you just not allowed to walk down the street with one? Frankly, I consider fascination with swords just as fetishistic--just more acceptable, because without discipline it's a little difficult to use them in a fashion that's anything like as dangerous as a gun.

By the way, I also consider that there's something quite a bit fetishistic about being into books...but there's also something a little more pleasant about the idea of some guy going through a school throwing books into every classroom.
 
M

MisterMike

Guest
rmcrobertson said:
A story: few years ago, I'm in the locker room, changing. A minister who trains there comes in....also there was a guy I'll call Ralph....lovely guy, cop, recently got onto a SWAT team. As their sniper.

Minister says, "Hey Ralph...I wanted to ask your advice. I'm thinking about getting a gun for my house...what do you recommend?" Me being a jerk, I mutter..."Get a shotgun, if you absolutely have to." Ralph says, "Yeah, good advice...get a shotgun."

Most gun store owners will reccomend the same thing, and most of their clients will follow their advice. But we are a culture of having the best of the best, the biggest house, biggest SUV. Why would it be any different for owning a gun? Most people in the end can be shown a reasonable or realistic alternative. The folks you mention are more the exception than the rule.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
shesulsa said:
Here here. When one examines our main sources of entertainment in the US, the media hooks and the meat of the advertising industry, it is not difficult to discern a distinct pattern.
While the concept needs investigation, other countries are importing our culture and media in spades.....is it increasing their levels of violence?
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Angelusmortis said:
Still don't buy the "suicide gun deaths" either. I go on facts and figures made available to us in early 2000, from our own local force as a comparison in gun related deaths between the UK and the US. You gonna tell me that ALL gun deaths for that year were suicides?
The stats say that suicides were 56% of total 2002 gun deaths nationwide (US). The remainder being homicides and accidental deaths. Where are you getting the impression that I am saying "all gun deaths are suicides"?:idunno:

What I am saying is that this signifigant chunk of suicides are lumped in with "gun violence" stats by people with political agendas to make the "firearms problem" appear as large as possible to further their cause.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Although, for once on this issue I find I agree with more of Roberts statements on a post than I disagree with, I still wonder about the "guns are an inefficient means of defense" statement. Its fairly obvious that the gun has evolved as the dominant weapon, from its invention to now, for a reason. The main point I argee with Robert on and have said all along on this board is that true "self defense" isnt about styles, MA techniques or weapons as it is about awareness, preparation and mindset. MA is no more the cure all for self defense than the gun. However to dismiss the guns place as an effective tool when properly trained and employed is just as shortsighted.
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
OK, MM, if the guys--and it is guys--obsessed with getting all kindsa nifty guns, regardless of their usefulness are, "exceptions rather than the rule," why do they seem to be everywhere, why do stores sell so many handguns, and why don't people just go buy a good shotgun?

I quite agree that a well-trained, law-abiding gun owner is no threat to me--most likely, anyway.

But when I lived in Denver, there was a period in which I personally saw: a 12-year-old standing on the corner of Colfax and York, pointing the .22 he'd gotten for his birthday at cars; a guy with a hospital armband on his wrist and a loaded .38 in a paper lunch bag; and (my fave) a guy with a scoped bolt-action rifle, bolt closed, finger inside trigger guard, sling wrapped around arm, standing in his front window pointing the gun. At me. He'd just gotten a new scope, you see--that's what he told me after I cussed him out, which tells you how smart I really am.

What do they sell at gun shows--plain old good shotguns, target rifles, good hunting rifles? Plain old knives? or is it every fancy weapon they can get their hands on?
 

Ceicei

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
85
Location
Utah
rmcrobertson said:
What do they sell at gun shows--plain old good shotguns, target rifles, good hunting rifles? Plain old knives? or is it every fancy weapon they can get their hands on?
Oh, gun shows sell the regular stuff that would be found in a typical gun store, and more. They are required to follow federal rules when making their sales. If you've never been to a gun show, you might find it interesting to at least visit one.

- Ceicei
 

Bammx2

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
786
Reaction score
18
Location
London England
"looking up at original header...........

guns?"

This is a really bad sign to tell ya the truth...
I have been on other forums as well and I have noticed that all discussions pertaining to "weapons" bans...alway reverts to guns.
Does that mean we,as a civilisation,have become so conditioned that we can't get away from them in any capacity?
I may be wrong and just caught up in the moment...and I do know I am guilty of it sometimes...
Or is it that some people only use them as "ammunition" against the US so we can deny the blatant obvious?
Out of 21,000 gun laws (collectively) only one has PROVEN to work....
Arm everyone so the playing field is leveled.
I think it sucks...but that has proven to be the only answer so far.
Bottom line.

So once again,I ask....

Guns?

This was supposed to be about swords in australia. Did gun crime in the UK and the US have any effect on that decision?
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
1. Uh...when and where, exactly, did they try arming everybody? And what makes you think that worked?

2. Every gun and knife show I've ever seen--and for knives and swords, I'd include Home Shopping Network--sells a lotta stuff that has very little practical value, but just looks really kewl, as they say.

3. So what exactly was the new law in Australia? Is it as nutty as the anti-nunchuk California law, which allows martial arts students and teachers to possess them in a dojo and stores to sell them, but which leaves it illegal to have them between the store and the dojo?
 

Bammx2

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
786
Reaction score
18
Location
London England
rmcrobertson said:
1. Uh...when and where, exactly, did they try arming everybody? And what makes you think that worked?

2. Every gun and knife show I've ever seen--and for knives and swords, I'd include Home Shopping Network--sells a lotta stuff that has very little practical value, but just looks really kewl, as they say.

3. So what exactly was the new law in Australia? Is it as nutty as the anti-nunchuk California law, which allows martial arts students and teachers to possess them in a dojo and stores to sell them, but which leaves it illegal to have them between the store and the dojo?

1)uh...guess I'm wrong since I can't quote EXACT stats....but some european countries that have allowed everyone to have arms have seen a drop in crime.just like states that allow concealed weapons have seen a drop in crime.ya know...the exact opposite of banning guns?!(if I am wrong..STAT me)
Guess you really can't use general staements when talkin about guns,huh?

2) I agree.

3)they are trying to do exactly what you stated with the exception of people who will own swords must be registered and have a permit and no,you still will not be allowed to carry them on the street unless it's directly from point A to point B.If you have them at a specific location,they must be kept under lock and key.
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
First off, there ARE no European countries that have allowed everybody to have guns. By and large, Europe has far more restrictive guns laws that this country does--and far lower rates of gun murder. There are exceptions in Eastern Europe--all in countries that have been saturated with guns because of their wars, countries in the process of recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union and torn apart by various forms of hatred and stupidity.

Personally, I'm afraid that my position is kinda the same as my position on Roe v. Wade--I think grownups should ideally be able to have pretty much anything in the way of weapons. Problem is, I also think that, a) "grownups," means people who have thought through issues like self-defense intelligently and fairly clear-headedly, gone out and got trained, and got over their fascination with toys; b) we live in a society that encourages violent fantasies, and actual violence, and solving your problems the ready and easy way. This is not a good combination.

And I stand by what I wrote on another thread--sometimes, politicians pander with laws like this, in order to get elected. I'll bet that if you look, you won't find a public emergency--you'll find some guy whose election prospects were looking dim, and a screwed-up political situation that allowed him to get this through the legislature.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Tulisan said:
#3. One thing to take into consideration; although we saw a slight drop in crime in the 90's, the homicide rate having dropped as much as it did had more to do with more effecient medical responses then a decrease in violence. People are still trying to kill each other; it is just that EMS arrives and revives a lot better then it used too.
While I agree that medical science does have an impact, I dont know if it can be credited for the entire decline. A 30% (91'-97') decline would mean HUGE leaps in medical science and EMS proceedures and I really havent seen any proof of that....
 

Latest Discussions

Top