Australian crime statistics since the gun ban - homicides DOWN

No, that is not what I am saying and I HOPE I am being far clearer than this response

I am saying that "armed robbery" in Australia includes use of ANY weapon - not just firearms

 

Where? Quite frankly I cannot see it - but if you would like to show me the posts that would be fine

 

Why would I show you anything...everyone else has posts, studies, and proof that popped your bubble on your stats, Anything I post will be met with the same blind allegiance to your cause. Not one durn thing anyone has posted has gotten through to you...and you "quite frankly cannot see it" You need to wave the

 

So, here is a question for you. If banning guns does not change the existing trend of gun related homicides, and it does not reduce armed robberies, then what did it do? The fact is that banning guns only bans then from law abiding citizens. These are not the ones that are killing people. It does nothing about removing illegally owned firearms. Do you happen to know how many illeaglly owned firearms are currently on the streets in Australia? What protection does a law abiding citizen have against those weapons?

 

And once more;

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

Total crime victims (most recent) by country

# 1 Australia: 30.1%
# 2 New Zealand: 29.4%
# 3 United Kingdom: 26.4%
# 4 Netherlands: 25.2%
# 5 Sweden: 24.7%
# 6 Italy: 24.6%
# 7 Canada: 23.8%
# 8 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 23.2%
# 9 Malta: 23.1%
# 10 Denmark: 23%
# 11 Poland: 22.7%
= 12 Belgium: 21.4%
= 12 France: 21.4%
# 14 Slovenia: 21.2%
# 15 United States: 21.1%

Doesn't it make you proud to be number 1!!!

- - - Updated - - -

But in overall crime victims Australia is still number 1!!

 

She quite frankly doesn't see. My guess she won't believe your post eh?

 

Alright, at least we are now on the same page. So, a year before the 94 gun ban (is that the right year?), is the crime rate the same, higher, or lower than it is now? What happened in between the year before and now? Did the crime rate stay the same, go up, or go down?

 

This isn't a debate.

This is me playing the "what the hell is stjames talking about?" game.

You started attacking about me sounding like an expert in... something about a bill of rights.
Australia doesn't have a bill of rights.
I haven't talked about any country other than Australia.
In fact, I haven't talked about rights at all.

So I ask again:
Whose rights?

 

Well just as I expected a claim without basis

There is such a thing as "World view bias" where the person sees only what they want to see and it takes a rather strong world view bias to see that statistics published by the Australian Institute of Criminology can be "popped" in any way without rigorous scientific and empirical analysis.

If that has occurred on this thread then yes I have failed to read that post and would be delighted if you showed me which of the over 100 posts it actually is

 

And here is another assumption without basis. Please tell me what you based this assumption on? Admittedly there is a paucity of research on this topic but what research there is suggests that murders can be committed by people who are "law abiding citizens" until they get out the gun

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...cc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/briefs/b12/b12e-eng.shtml

Very few on the streets because if you carry a gun without a licence and onto the "streets" in Australia the coppers own your !@#@#@ and if you are VERY lucky they will simply enforce the law - if you are unlucky we the public would own your !@#!@# and the outcome of being beaten to death with your own weapon would not be nice.

See we don't WANT weapons on the streets

 

No unfounded assuption here. I am merely using logic. If you BAN something that you believe is increasing the number of murders AND organize a massive confiscation of that item, then, logically, you should see an decrease in murders immediately after the confiscation period (since that object is supposedly no longer available after the ban/confiscation). Most legislative changes do not involve drastic bans and confiscation of items. Rather, most legistative changes are far more mild in comparison, and hence it takes more time to see any effect.

I never said that the rise of murders in 1998 and 1999 were statistically significant (they weren't). I merely said, "by 1999, murder rates had increased to the highest level in the 15 years shown on the graph," indicating that the gun ban and gun confiscation obviously failed to serve its purpose.

Absolutely not.

I did not cherry pick at all. You didn't even mention the word "suicide" in your OP. Rather, you focus on HOMICIDES. Hence, I responded with data and research regarding the efficacy of the Australia's gun ban/confiscation on homicides. You would be hijacking your own thread by suddenly talking about suicides at this point.

Irrelevant. Again, your OP did not mention suicides, but rather focused specifically on homicides. Hence, the mention of suicides would be completely off topic.

Completely irrelevant. My point was that if such a Draconian gun ban/confiscation failed to curb homicides in Australia, which is surrounded by water, then any similar gun control laws would be surely doomed to fail in America, since we do have porous borders and there are many Central and South American countries that already smuggle thousands of tons of illegal drugs through those borders, and I am sure that they would have no difficulty smuggling thousands of tons of firearms as well.

Irrelevant. The article only focuses on MASS SHOOTINGS (which make up a tiny percentage of all homicides) while disregarding all other forms of homicide. Your OP was about all homicides: Hence, citing this article is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Equally irrelvant. This article only examines homicide and suicide that are related to firearms, while disregarding all other forms of homicide and suicide.

Such "studies" are only look at "gun homicides" or "gun suicides" are most often heavily biased, since this does not address homicides as a whole. If your law decreased "gun homicides" by 100, but "knive homicides" increased by 100, would you still consider this law a success? I would hope not. That's why looking at "gun homicides" is myopic at best. We need to look at ALL homicides to determine a useful effect.

It appears you haven't really started.

In all seriousness, and without any sarcasm, I am happy that Australia passed this gun ban/confiscation, because I believe it provides pro-gun people, like myself, the best evidence that gun control do not work to stop homicides; if such a Draconian law failed in a country like Australia then it would be complete absurdity to believe that a similar or less stringent law would have any positive effect in the USA.

So again, without any sarcasm, I would like to thank Australia for being the guinea pig in this very important experiment on gun control.

 

And ONE MORE TIME - you cannot compare "total" crime between countries and two seconds of thought would show why

a) different legislation - i.e. here it is a "serious assault" to spit on or even in the direction of a cop
b) different law enforcement - we have more cops looking into bicycle theft because we have less cops trying to solve murders
c) Different court systems - you are more likely to face court over your assault during the pub fight when everyone was arrested because our courts are not choked with murder cases
d) Different court outcomes - not everyone here does jail time and you will be out with a fine ready to have a beer again and get into another fight after facing court
e) Different data collection methods - was this based on victim survey and what the hell did they include? (Yeah I'm a victim of crime 'coz someone nicked me knickers when I got drunk the other night)
f) Different data analysis methods etc etc etc

it is almost impossible to compare statistics between countries

 

It was 1996 and your question is irrelevant

Now the REAL question is - is the firearm injury/homicide/suicide rate lower - and the answer is an indefatigable YES

Not all "Crime" is serious crime and not all crime ends with someone injured or dead. I.e. Pushbike theft may have risen but would that have anything to do with taking guns off of the streets? See, here if someone was attempting to steal your pushbike you would NOT shoot them dead (because you would end up on a charge of murder for a start) neither would you even THINK of using a gun. You might, though grab the little toe rag and give him a good swift kick in the !#@!#

 

Why is it not relevant? Are guns a source of crime or are they not a source of crime? If they are, then the question is VERY relevant. If they are not, then shut the hell up about guns.

No, I would not shoot them dead because they aren't a threat of great bodily harm or death to me at that time. I would confront them, tell them to knock it off, and be a good witness for the cops. If during that confrontation they had me reevaluate the great bodily injury/death, then I would be prepared to prevent great bodily harm or death to my person.

BTW, what the hell is a push bike? Is that some kind of south hemisphere thing?

 

we are talking about the US and the Citizens Right to own and carry firearms free of government intervention.
Ergo, our guns are our Rights.

 

Ok - if you put it that way we saw an absolute and incontestable result. See the original purpose of the bun buy back and gun legislation was not actually to reduce the overall firearm injury rate - it was to stop mass shootings. This we did. But it took years for that to reflect in the statistics. The only reason we actually did a buy back was that we could not change the act and make certain firearms illegal without offering compensation for those guns. So the illegal guns did stay out there but the source of illegal firearms became harder and so there has been this slow decrease.

It is actually quite surprising that there has been any change whatsoever since even before 1996 our firearm injury rate, especially compared to America, was so low.

Nooooo - that is not what you posted

I d

Possibly me thinking in terms of overall firearm injury - which I have a tendency to do since a LOT of the research I read on this is from medical journals

Only if they go into manufacture of weapons, which at the moment is mostly happening in America. That is why there is a big illegal trade of firearms TO Mexico and not the other way around

Actually mass shootings, MAY be a small percentage of American homicides but they were not a small percentage of ours. Because of the overall lower homicide rates. And you cannot dismiss them because "Oh they were only a small percentage" the point is they ARE homicides and they DID reduce - astoundingly

Then give me another article - tell you what how about one from America?

Can you offer me a study that discounts mine

(((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))

I did not link to this because it was not a peer reviewed article but it is a well referenced one

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/show/...ro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats

 

Guns CAN be a source of crime - but they are not the only source of crime

 

Who cares about the US?

 

Exactly. I don't know why citizens of other countries feel free to chime in on American laws when they have no vested interest or background in the society in question.

 

What part of this thread mentioned American laws? I stated this thread with the sole intent of debunking some NRA backed bull dust

 

I don't care HOW you try to slice it, assault is assault, is assault, I don't care WHAT country your in. I could care less about your court system, burglary is burglary regardless. I don't care how you collect the data, murder is murder regardless. That's like saying that they collect the data differently in Australia than in America so you can't say who has the biggest diabetes problem. Australia is NUMBER 1 for the most crimes. LIVE WITH IT!!

 

Isn't it obvious??? WE DO!!!!

 

Wow! Errrr NO!

Is "Spitting" an assault in the US? In a bar brawl would everyone be arrested and charged?

International law varies hugely in relation to what is considered assault
http://www.hg.org/assault.html

"Robbery" is not straight forward as you think Fraud may be included in one country but excluded in another

 

If I hit someone in a bar that wasn't doing or saying anything to me my butt would wind up in jail. In some states both would wind up in jail. It all averages out. You hold your hand in your pocket and say you have a weapon even though I don't see it and hand over something, that's robbery.

 

But over here it is not the same laws - that is the point AUSTRALIA is not AMERICA. For a start we do not have "local" police only State and Federal. You split your stats into serious assault and just assault whereas as far as I can determine off of our website we just lump it all together

Same with rape - we actually do not keep separate stats for rape it is all filed under "sexual assault" a term which can include kissing someone against their will