The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

The link I posted included total violent crime.

Crime in Australia did not immediately decrease with the gun ban - there was a crime bubble which started in 1996 (the first year of the gun ban), peaked in 2001/2002, and tehn gradually declined. Crime rates were declining before 1996, they were declining in all Western nations, but in 1996 the rates in AUS reversed and increased. Even homicide increased 16% by 2001. Total violent crime increased 33%. Armed robbery declined to the pre-ban rate just a few years ago.

You can see the bubble in your chart.

Here is the violent crime rate for AUS, the rates are from the AUS crime reports.




The gun ban in 1996 simply made AUS a more violent nation. And it had no impact on firearm homicide rates:

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh my.

Correlation does not imply causation.


PS: Here's Snopes opinion:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

(and summerized):

Regardless of how much of a cause-and-effect relationship there might be between the NFA and gun deaths in Australia, it’s undeniable that the firearms homicide rate in that country has decreased substantially since the implementation of the NFA. It’s not the case, however, as suggested by the misleading and long out-of-date online piece quoted in the Example block above (which was written way back in 2001) that the overall crime rate in Australia has shot up since the NFA was introduced. The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then

 

Wrong. I don't get my data from snopes or some middle man. I get my data from the Australia Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports.

Violent crime rate per 100,000 people for AUS:
year - violent crime rate / robbery rate
1995 - 716.7 / 80.61
1996 - 768.1 / 89.41
1997 - 868.4 / 115.04
1998 - 918 / 127.2
1999 - 902.1 / 119.5
2000 - 948.3 / 121.9
2001 - 1014.7 / 137.0
2002 - 1015.7 / 106.8
2003 - 991.2 / 99.1
2004 - 959.8 / 82.1
2005 - 995.2 / 84.2
2006 - 1014.4 / 84.0
2007 - 1020.8 / 85.6
2008 - 971.7 / 77.2 (robbery is finally below the preban rate)
2009 - 959.5 / 69.7 (violent crime still above the preban rate)

Go get educated before posting.

 

Their overall homicide rate fell at the same rate as that of the US over the same time period, and their declines in violent crime rate significantly lagged that of the decline of rates in the US.

 

yet the violent crime rate for English whites is far higher than the same violent crime rate for us heavily armed American whites. go figure

 

Very true, when you subtract minority Crime, the residue of White Crime is much lower than Crime rates of England and other Countries with White populations.

Crime among those with concealed carry is very very low, Crimes commited by Police Officers is much higher by comparison.

 

That's not correct, any minority opinion holds guidance value. The way is clealry open to challenge on Heller, but imagine they will wait for a re-balanced SCOTUS

He certainly has not "eviscerated" me, he just writes longer posts.

 

I think we're considering bravado at the expense of survival, so you had better ask the magic bullet-eating 6Gunner that one.

 

I'm really pleased you have all managed to survive in cosy western countries.

 

My problem with this graph is that Aus violent crime rates are like a quarter of USA. So how come the line is on top?

 

maybe indicating that its not at all a race issue?

 

The difference being "gun pointed at the ground" and "gun pointed at you". Can a criminal shoot you dead before you reach for your gun? hell yes.

SO let me understand you. A guy draws a gun but before aiming it at you, you dive away and start shooting at him? Is that right? Presumably you would want to make the first shot. Correct?

 

It is indeed correct. There is no legal standard in the united states that says otherwise.

Indeed it does not. There is no standard in the united states that would allow a lower court to disregard the majority ruling, and instead cite the dissenting ruling in determining how they would rule on a particular case.

So the claim goes. But the Heller ruling has been used as the basis for determining both McDonald and Caetano and is showing no signs of being overturned. Heller has already been used in setting precedent, and once precedent has been set, the united state supreme court almost never overturns it, even if the precedent that is set is incorrect.

You have indeed been eviscerated, and your proverbial entrails put on display. The reason the member Bryanva presents longer posts than yourself, is that he not only presents supreme court cases that actually verify what he is saying, he provides an in depth explanation as to how the language of the case clearly supports his presented position. He demonstrates that the citations presented do not rely on obscure passages from old journals, or discussions presented by members of hypothetical secret societies that may or may not exist. The citations he presents that reinforces what he speaks of, carry the actual weight of settled law, and have never been overturned by new courts through the passage of time.

 

Its in the same class as obiter.

Miller was also used before that to set precedents, and Heller overturned it.

BS. They're long-winded diatribes that veer so far off point its ridiculous. He misreads passages all the time, but there's so many of them its not worth chasing them all up. He back-flips and dilutes his positions, then writes about how he has succeeded. Its just brag

 

Hey, don't blame me that your ignorance of reality is so all-encompassing. Nothing in my posts has anything to do with "magic", but in real world tactics that have proven their value in real world confrontations the world over.

 

...And the black knight is back! "It's just a flesh wound!"

 

A firearms expert that is Anti firearms yet knows everything about a gun fight and how one wins a gun fight, yet never has been in a gun fight.

WoW !

 

Nope, it isn't.

 

You are making things up.

 

Not at all, these statistics are well established fact, even Police Officers have a higher rate of Crime than those with concealed carry permits / licenses.

 

Yes, it is.

 

You need to reread your own link. The test was with the officer having his gun ALREADY pointed at the criminal, with the criminal having his gun in his hand and pointed at the ground... and the cop could not react fast enough to prevent the criminal from shooting him. Why? Reaction time. So, if a criminal has HIS gun pointed at YOU, you can seize the initiative by acting. Can a criminal shoot you dead before you reach for your gun? No; not if you use proper tactical movement as you draw.

We learned this in Force on Force training, in scenarios with a varying number of "bad guys". Now, remember, in this situation you have well-trained "bad guys" who already know, without a doubt, that you're not going to submit. They KNOW, right from the get-go, that you're going to fight. The only thing they don't know is exactly what you're going to choose to do. We all know that in the real world a criminal who pulls a gun on you is expecting you to submit.

So, what happens in our scenario? The bad guy has his gun drawn, pointed in on you... and you explode laterally, drawing your gun as you move. The natural tendency of the bad guy is to hesitate a fraction of a second as his brain tries to process the unexpected stimulus that you aren't simply standing there, begging for your life as you reach for your wallet. If he does react - as in the training scenario where they already know you're not giving up - it's to slap the trigger in a hurried attempt to shoot you. Inevitably - literally, 100% of the time - that first shot misses, as it passes through where you were standing a split second before. Now, not to blow my own horn, but after years of practice I'm pretty fast to draw. I have moved and drawn from concealment and fired, fast enough my shot fires either at the exact same moment as the "bad guy's" or even quicker, and his hurried shot passes through the empty space where I was while my shot impacts him in the chest or face. In one training scenario I was faced with three bad guys, and the scenario required me - as the good guy - to react to THEM drawing their weapons, as would happen on the street if a gang mugging began with multiple assailants pulling weapons on you unexpectedly. In my scenario I had three bad guys pull weapons; two of them with guns and one of them with a knife, and when the two guys with guns drew them the one with the knife pulled it and then stepped back to let his friends with guns deal with me. The one with the knife was to the left of the group of three, and when I saw the guns and then saw the knife I took off at a dead run straight at the knife guy. The guys with guns opened fire... their shots passing through the air behind me as I ran. I fired multiple rounds into the knife guy, who dropped out of the fight after being hit. I moved to where I had taken the remaining two and had them lined up... and watched as the furthest away, so tunnel-visioned in on trying to shoot me, actually shot his "partner in crime" several times in the back. As the second guy dropped out of the fight, the last one actually froze for a second as he realized he was shooting his friend... and I fired one last round that struck him dead center in the face. The instructors then evaluated us and found that the three bad guys had all suffered what would have been fatal wounds and I was unmarked.

Later on, one of my fellow students in that class - ironically, the guy with the "knife" in the above scenario - was working the graveyard shift and pulled into a gas station hoping to get a cup of coffee. He heard a loud bang from inside - the station's attendant has just been shot - and then two gang members came out of the door, guns in hand. They saw the cop in full uniform standing there and swung their guns up and opened fire at him... but they missed because he moved and kept moving. He was able to draw his sidearm from his Level III retention holster and return fire, killing both of them without suffering injury. Fortunately, the attendant survived and made a full recovery, but the validity of tactical movement in the face of drawn firearms was proven that night... and it keeps being proven by those with the right kind of training.

 

sorry, you haven't established in your posts that you have any understanding of this issue so your blanket denials are not going to be accepted as having any veracity. The fact is, the UK is now far more violent in terms of street crime than the white areas of the USA-areas where gun ownership is high

 

white americans don't have any higher rates of gun violence than disarmed whites in Europe What skews our gun crime statistics is black crime in the USA

 

Sort of like someone that figures they can tell a pilot how to resolve emergencies in flight from watching movies but never setting foot in a plane... simple as driving a car you know.