Australian crime statistics since the gun ban - homicides DOWN

So as long as it is not with a gun, right?

 

It's Australia gun control statistics, who cares? Oh and those stats appear to be getting torn up eh?

 

..........the only stupid question is one that is not asked or answered

 

No, I mean *literally* what rights?

Where did I mention rights of any kind?

- - - Updated - - -

Why wouldn't they care?

 

your answer first

 

I would, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

SIGH OK once more...it's Australian statistics, who cares? Tell me please who cares?

 

Why wouldn't they care? Its gun control statistics in a gun control forum. If they don't care why would they come to the forum?

 

Actually YES!!!

So which is the more fraught situation facing a 12 gauge shotgun or some weedy little guy with a syringe??

 

What stats are "getting torn up"??? The American ones from the NCPA??

 

on that last graph does it really make a difference if the crime was committed with a weapon or not? i mean if someone beats a person to death with their bare hands is that better than the victim getting shot?

 

Agreed that a murder is a murder no matter how it is committed but there are other crimes such as assault where the death rate is lower because they are punching each other in the face not shooting each other in the head

 

Actually, if you look at your graph, the murder rates went UP in the immediate period after the gun ban (which took place from October of 1996 through September of 1997). If such a sweeping gun ban were effective, we should see a statistically significant drop in the murders as early as 1997 or 1998. However, that didn't happen: As your graph shows, by the beginning of 1997 we saw a statistically insignificant drop in the murders, but these numbers were not at low as they were in 1993-1994 (before the gun ban took place). To make matters worse for your side of the argument, in 1998 murders began to increase again, and by 1999, murder rates had increased to the highest level in the 15 years shown on the graph.

In 2003-2004, murders did drop below that of 1993-1994, but the effect was not statistically signficant.

Multiple peer reviewed papers echo my statements above:

From wikipedia: In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives". Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide

A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates


The actual studies that the wikipedia article is based upon includes:
1) Wainwright, Robert. Gun laws fall short in war on crime, Sydney Morning Herald, 29 October 2005. accessdate=10 August 2010
2) Chapman, Simon Loaded words pose a danger to gun reform, Sydney Morning Herald, 31 October 2005. accessdate=10 August 2010
3) Weatherburn, Don. Statistics and gun laws, Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November 2005.accessdate=10 August 2010
4) Lee, Wang-Sheng; & Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy 28 (1): 65–79.

If such a wide-sweeping, stringent gun ban is ineffective in a country like Australia, which is surrounded by water, then how could more mild forms of gun control (in comparison) be effective in the United States, with our porous borders?

 

since you don't live here and unfamiliar with what Rights , are.....then you shouldn't be posting in a thread about Gun Rights

 

They wouldn't care because they are from Australia and who is they? Assies, americans?

 

The weedy little guy has aids. I'd rather be shot than get aids to suffer and die for years. You tell me, is it better to get shot and recover or die a slow and painful death.....

 

Where is "here"? The Internet?

 

Your thesis: The gun ban in Australia that forbids most repeating firearms from honest citizens is the main driving force that keeps crimes like murders low.

My thesis: The people, their culture and how effectively criminals are dealt with are the main driving forces on crime.

You think the presence of "dangerous guns" that are now banned makes your people more safe. I believe those guns have very little impact.

The DNA of the average person in rural America is really not much different than those in all of Australia. If you look at North Dakota, one of our American states that has about the highest percentage of guns in each household---with so many of them "assault style weapons"---you can see that crime, and murders are even lower than they are in your country.

In a random year, 2006, there were 260 murders in Australia out of 19,855,287 souls. The same year in gun-rich North Dakota there were 8 murders out of 635,867 souls. That boils down to 1.3X10-5 murders per person in Australia vs. 1.2X10-5 in North Dakota. Some years in North Dakota there were only 6 murders.

It wouldn't matter if you gave all the legal, honest gun owners currently in Autralia or places like North Dakaota a full-auto assault rifle, crime would still be low as it is in Switzerland.

 

feigned ignorance...............

 

Actual ignorance. Enlighten me.

 

So the act of violence doesn't matter, just so that it is not done with a gun, correct?

I also find it weird that in one case, you say that it is ok to include "syringe attacks," but the increase in violent crime numbers submitted by your own government should be taken with a grain of salt because of "syringe attacks." So which is it?

 

childish attutdes seldom win debates. when you have something to contribute......................
ok, here's enlightenment....................
you don't need to be in this debate...........I just keep wanting to call you Daniel but your not........................
question, tho..here on tthe internet? lol.............I didn't now there were guns in the internet......that astounds me...how can one kill in the internet?

 

Yeah silly, everybody knows that guns are walking the streets randomly killing children. Duhhhhhhh.

 

Love the unfounded assumption there - why would it fall immediately and not over time? Most legislative changes take time before statistical impact is seen

Wahoo!! New definition of "statistically significant" - any dip below a trend line is not "statistically significant" while any rise above is? Do I have that right??

And your first quote is not from one of those papers but Wiki - well, it's editors will be chuffed to think they are being included as "peer reviewed"

Cherry pick much??

The section before that paragraph read

Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[32] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[33] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[34]

OOOOPS!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

If such a wide-sweeping, stringent gun ban is ineffective in a country like Australia, which is surrounded by water, then how could more mild forms of gun control (in comparison) be effective in the United States, with our porous borders?[/QUOTE]

Well since you export more guns to Mexico than you import I would say it would probably help the situation

Oh! and here are some ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED papers

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short

Here is one from AUSTRIA

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/191/3/253.short

And I could go on

 

Your stats are getting torn up...it's easy to see eh?