Australian crime statistics since the gun ban - homicides DOWN

Yes, we saw that Australia's sweeping gun ban was ineffective in decresing murders.

First, you are shifting the goalposts entirely: Your OP was titled " Australian crime statistics since the gun ban - homicides DOWN". Thus, to all of a sudden switch the focus of the the thread from "homicide" to only include "mass shootings" is disingenuous.
Second, I am not talking about "firearm injury rates." Rather, I was talking about the total number of murders.
Third, the law did not show any statistically signficiant effect on mass shootings. From Wikipedia: A study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”(McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal

Fourth, looking at only mass shootings rather than all mass killings, is myopic and misleading, since there were several mass murders since the Port Arthur massacre, most of them involving arson.

If this were true, then why the sudden increase in murders in the years immediatley after the ban was fully implemented?

This is irrelevant. Yes, Australia's murder was indeed low before the gun confiscation and remained low after the gun confiscation. What is relevant is that the gun confiscation did nothing to decrease the number of murders.

Actually, it was EXACTLY what I posted (hence the quotation marks around the statement).

No need: There are enough illegal guns in countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia to last decades.

But in the event of a American gun ban similar to that of Australia, guns can just as easily flow from Central and South America into the USA, just like drugs do.

If what you are saying is true and mass shootings did indeed make up a significant percentage of Australian murders AND the gun ban was effective in "astoundingly" diminishing the number of these mass shootings, then the total number of murders would have to decrease as well (which they did not). It would be mathematically impossible for the number of mass shootings to drop while the total number of murders remain the same, if the mass shootings did indeed make up a significant portion of all murders.

I already gave you several articles explaining that there was no stastitically signficant change in Australian murder rates after the gun confiscation.

What is the point in discounting an article that is irrelevant to the discussion? Your OP was about all "HOMICIDES", not "gun-homicides and especially not "gun-suicides." Hence, that article has no business in this discussion.

This is a HIGHLY biased/dishonest article. First of all, it is again myopic to only focus on "mass shootings," since there are many ways to kill masses of people. If we were to honestly debate the efficacy of Australia's gun confiscation to stop mass murderes, then we have to look at all form of mass murder, and not just shootings. The fact is, there have been several mass killings since Port Arthur, including Childers Palace Fire, where 15 people were killed by an arsonist, the Monash University shooting (two people shot to death and five people wounded), the Churchill Fire, where 10 people were killed by an arsonist, and the Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire.

I disregard all articles that focus on "gun murders" or "gun suicides" or "gun-related mass murders" because they are inherently dishonest. For a gun control law to be effective, it must reduce ALL HOMICIDES in a statistically significant way. For example, is is unacceptable to claim success if a gun control law reduces "gun murders" by 100 when "knive murders" and "arson murders" increase by 100. If this is the desperation that gun-control advocates need to sink to in order to attempt to win an argument, then it's time for you guys to throw in the towel.

 

glad you agree that our business is none of yours. Thanks.

 

"that is the point AUSTRALIA is not AMERICA."
This shall be remembered next time you might decide to involve yourself in US affairs

 

I'm an Australian posting in a thread about Australia, which was started by an Australian.

I'm honestly not sure what gave you the vaguest hint I had any interest in your country.

 

Thanks, untypical of some of the aussies in here..............They do like to compare themselves to us.

 

Honestly, our comments weren't directed at you. It was more directed at Bowerbird due to her posting in threads about American gun laws and saying how candy striped Australian gun laws and gun crime are compared to the United States.

 

Will Lessons From Down Under Stem the Undertaker Here?

"But something extraordinary happened: the laws tapped into public revulsion at the shooting and became extremely popular. And they became extremely effective.

In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn't been a single mass shooting since Port Arthur.

"It's not that we are a less violent people and that you are a more violent people," says Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney who runs GunPolicy.org, which tracks gun violence and gun laws across the world. "It's that you have more lethal means at your disposal."

But it wasn't just the new laws that made Australia safer. The gun buyback program collected nearly 650,000 assault weapons and 50,000 additional weapons ? about one sixth of the national stock. Fewer guns on the street helped severely reduce the likelihood that guns could be used for a mass shooting."

""If you're serious about preventing violence, you need to go about it in a comprehensive way," argues Rebecca Peters, one of the world's leading experts on gun control, who played a key role in Australia tightening its gun laws.

Peters argues the United States could take a few initial steps that Australia took to make the country safer. The first step, she argues, would be to bring back the assault weapon ban. One of the next important changes would be to expand background checks: currently, gun owners undergo checks only if they buy a new gun ? not if they buy a used one.

She also pointed out two changes that Australia made to its background checks after the Port Arthur massacare that might have prevented Adam Lanza from obtaining the weapon he used in Sandy Hook Elementary.

Australian background checks now require information about who gun owners live with. If police had determined that Lanza wouldn't have qualified to own a gun, his mother might have been either refused permission, or required to keep her guns locked in a different location.

She also advocated increasing waiting periods and expanding checks on owners who want more than one gun.

"When you're talking about reducing motor vehicle accidents, you don't only rely on seat belts, you don't only on speed limits, you don't only rely on highway design, you don't only rely on motor vehicle standards, but you have a set of them. Similarly, they're a set of measures that together constitute regulation to prevent gun violence," Peters told ABC News."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/australia-model-successful-gun-control-laws/story?id=18007055

 

Really? Considering that was not their original intent - there still HAS been an overall decrease in murders despite an increase in population over 10 years

And the percentage of those homicides caused by guns has continued to decrease


It IS working, you cannot make up rules such as "this year was high therefore it is not working" (cherry picking) or "It should have worked immediately" (straw man argument)

Mass shootings are not a crime statistic? Yes our numbers are down - and I started this thread to counter the disinformation out there

Sec

Which is down and I cannot see how Americans keep insisting that a graph that points toward the floor is actually going up

However, the federal Labor MP Andrew Leigh believes Howard's success will endure. Leigh, as an academic, published research in 2010 that found the buyback of 500,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns had cut firearm suicides by 74 per cent, saving 200 lives a year. Gun homicides were down 59 per cent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...guns-20121216-2bho7.html#ixzz2SAcLxiCw/COLOR]

Okay right HERE - IF YOU QUOTE YOU LINK

It is rude beyond rude to not leave a link for your opponent to check out the source - even if that source is Wiki

because AGAIN I have found information pertinent to the debate

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.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

So the "authors" of that Wiki study have strong ties to Sporting Shooters Association Australia - Man! That is like quoting research from the NRA
Bias much???

Oh! Wow! Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Are you trying to imply that arson has replaced guns as a means of mass deaths? So, did you compare the rate of mass arson pre and post 1996? Oh! And I note to get to "several" you would have had to include BUSHFIRES and if you include those you have to point the biggest finger at global warming - and who has been a major contributor to that hmmmmmm?

If

Because statistics DO vary from year to year - especially when they are comparatively low to begin with - and when you have something like the unearthing of a serial killer - or in this case killers (eg Snowtown) it surely will put a bump in your statistics

(((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))) Where have I said Americans should ban guns? Please point that out because I would be very very interested. You have been operating under a lot of assumptions and seem to be continuing to do so despite my attempts to set the record straight

Didn't say that

A

Straw man - and illogical

Hmmm - articles written by biased sources - oh! and we did not "confiscate" guns - there was recompense

Nooooo, there seems to be a disregard of all articles that you not confirm that Australian crime rates went up

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Considering that was not their original intent - there still HAS been an overall decrease in murders despite an increase in population over 10 years

And the percentage of those homicides caused by guns has continued to decrease


It IS working, you cannot make up rules such as "this year was high therefore it is not working" (cherry picking) or "It should have worked immediately" (straw man argument)

Mass shootings are not a crime statistic? Yes our numbers are down - and I started this thread to counter the disinformation out there

Sec

Which is down and I cannot see how Americans keep insisting that a graph that points toward the floor is actually going up

However, the federal Labor MP Andrew Leigh believes Howard's success will endure. Leigh, as an academic, published research in 2010 that found the buyback of 500,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns had cut firearm suicides by 74 per cent, saving 200 lives a year. Gun homicides were down 59 per cent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...guns-20121216-2bho7.html#ixzz2SAcLxiCw/COLOR]

Okay right HERE - IF YOU QUOTE YOU LINK

It is rude beyond rude to not leave a link for your opponent to check out the source - even if that source is Wiki

because AGAIN I have found information pertinent to the debate

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.[38]

So the "authors" of that Wiki study have strong ties to Sporting Shooters Association Australia - Man! That is like quoting research from the NRA
Bias much???

Oh! Wow! Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Are you trying to imply that arson has replaced guns as a means of mass deaths? So, did you compare the rate of mass arson pre and post 1996? Oh! And I note to get to "several" you would have had to include BUSHFIRES and if you include those you have to point the biggest finger at global warming - and who has been a major contributor to that hmmmmmm?

If

Because statistics DO vary from year to year - especially when they are comparatively low to begin with - and when you have something like the unearthing of a serial killer - or in this case killers (eg Snowtown) it surely will put a bump in your statistics

(((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))) Where have I said Americans should ban guns? Please point that out because I would be very very interested. You have been operating under a lot of assumptions and seem to be continuing to do so despite my attempts to set the record straight

Didn't say that

A

Straw man - and illogical

Hmmm - articles written by biased sources - oh! and we did not "confiscate" guns - there was recompense

Nooooo, there seems to be a disregard of all articles that you not confirm that Australian crime rates went up

 

Exactly!! And one of the biggest measures was locking of guns into safes. If you own a gun, unless you are using it it is locked in a gun safe

 

The "assault wepons ban" was in place when Columbine and many other mass shootings happened. Why do you ignore this fact?

 

BB, this question is simple: How that is enforced? by surrendering our 4th and 5th A Rights as well?
Stiff fines wont work, people will still have guns out of the safes. Australia has shown that did not work.
Since that didn't fetch a large enough response, the government went to heavier taxation, reducing sales by increasing the heavy hand of taxation. That didn't reduce ownership enough.
Turn 'em in for money. a lot of old guns and broken pistols were turned in, and yet it still wasn't enough.
So, mandatory registration was the next obvious step. Ownership of private arms was now a crime. Register or be jailed
Grab is the next logical step. Cops go door to door with the military after a grace period. Illegal guns = jail time
Your own government cannot keep track of over half a million guns or more.
Extended background checks lead to registration, and Oz has been a shining example what we can expect.

 

here's a thought. Extended background check means entering a name or two into a query. If it comes back no record, you do whatever. However, when you made your query, the name of both is added to the data base. That converts into backdoor registration.

 

mod edit>>>PA. You posted the a graph showing gun related homicides in Australia per year. I then pointed out that there were spikes each year that Australia passed a gun control laws. I also posted that if you remove those spikes you see a steady downward trend. A trend that is not affected by the gun control laws. Your own graph validates that statement.

Are we talking about Australia or the US? I thought we were posting about Australia, but you quote the US FBI. Not only that, but the link you provided is not valid.

Then why are there an estimated 10,000 illegal firearms on Australia's Black Market. For that matter, why are were these illegal handguns used in the "worst bikie war in decades" in 2012.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-27/authorities-target-illegal-handgun-trade/3976404

 

Its funny, I don't hear the people of Australia saying they are any less free. It always seems to be just the far right in this country saying that. You know, the same ones that thought the 90's under Clinton was socialism.

 

The same ones who voted in the patriot act? Went to war illegally with a country that did not initiate hostilities? Threw people in jail who had not committed any crimes and then charged them with crimes that did not exist - those people??

And the SAME people are OK with the NRA trying to enact legislation to gag the medical profession - a breech of the first amendment

But even breathe gun regulations and they start to scream about freedoms

 

subjects are not free, have no Rights, cannot own guns, slinghsots, bb guns, have public birthday parties for their children, bows and arrows, cig lighters that look like firearms, paintball guns, slings, knives over 3 inches, or the RIGHT to protest.
But they do have mandatory voting for even more socialists leaders.
See how easy that is? Since you've never had Rights, what difference does it make to you?

 

So all you have is paranoid (*)(*)(*)(*) you've made up in your head? Thanks for sharing your rationale.

 

American crime statistics since the Australian gun ban and the US relaxing gun laws - homicides DOWN

I figured out why we have a higher death by gun rate and why Australia's higher rate for home invasion and rape.

We can shoot the perps.

 

Lots of luck validating the statement that we have more "home invasions" especially since that term does NOT appear in any crime database







Where is your proof that you "shoot the perps" and PLEASE do not drag out that idiot study by Kleck

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

 

Noticed you didn't mention rapes.

 

They are on the graph so I thought it did not need mentioning - BTW notice that rapes are included in the broader definition of "sexual assault"

 

You are right, sexual assaults up.

 

Only if you hold the graph upside down

 

Has the definition of homicide changed?

 

My deepest sympathies. You present the facts only to get shot down by people who don't like anything that interferes with their views and hadn't the decency to respond with a well thought and reasoned argument.

Thanks for behaving like an adult. It's surprisingly rare.