Australian crime statistics since the gun ban - homicides DOWN

I'll just leave this here.

Interesting how Switzerland's statistics always get left out of this debate. Why could that be?

 

How come all those who gleefully post about the Swiss do not post information later than the 1990's??

Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

What really amuses me is that the SAME people who scream "You can't compare the USA with _______ coz we have more immigrants and people!" are quite happy to compare the USA with Switzerland

http://www.pri.org/stories/politics...resting-correlation-but-is-it-real-12842.html

- - - Updated - - -

No which is why you can compare that between countries

 

Probably because the '90s stats are the most visible things that pop up on Google. Do you think this changes anything, or is it simply the only argument you have?

Not sure who's telling you this. I've never said it. I'm only pointing out that while you're trying to craft a "ZOMG GUNZ R SO DANGEROUS!!!!1" narrative, it might be a good idea to show the whole picture just for the sake of honesty and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Here is how well the Australian gun ban worked. Since the Australian gun ban, gun homicides in the US are down by almost 50%!

 

Hmmmm - yes I suspect it might be a case of "Evolution in Action"

 

Registration of cars has been so terrible how?

 

Probably because Switzerland has a mandatory citizens militia instead of a conventional military. Is that what you are advocating?

 

Do you think it makes a difference? I don't.

 

Then you advocate for mandatory service to your country?

 

No, you missed my point. I was talking about a difference in the violent crime statistics. Do you think the militia vs. army thing makes any difference in those statistics? I do not.

 

Well, the state can always come and get your car for whatever reason...........they know where it is, and what it is.
And you don't really own it if they can take it away from you.
That is what is most important about all of this, registration has always led to confiscation. There can be no denial of that. History is my witness. It all starts with a small, but reasonable change in laws, the next thing ya know we're living like China, Nazi Germany, or NKorea. They have absolutely no Rights. EVERYTHING is registered there, including the people. The government owns them lock stock and barrel. They cannot resist if the government becomes real intrusive. They cannot defend themselves in their own homes against anyone, much less the government. Criminals are allowed to finish their crime without armed interference.
This is no lie. This is what you desire?

 

But gun bans take the guns out of law-abiding citizens and put them into the hands of criminals! How can crime go down after a gun ban? How can I find fault with these statistics and neutralize them to save the reputation of guns?

 

Then you are not familiar with Switzerland's gun restrictions, and how they relate to mandatory service.

 

Since I am not paranoid, I have no fear of the state confiscating my car. I am 60 years old and have never had a car confiscated by the state, and despite cars being registered for over 100 years in the US, it never lead to Nazism.

 

Prohibited Firearms and Ammunition

"In Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns'

In Switzerland, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited

In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence

In Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence

Gun Owner Licensing

In Switzerland, some 'manual repetition rifles' for sport and hunting may be owned without a licence, but in other cases only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection

The minimum age for gun ownership in Switzerland is 18 years

An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass background checks which consider mental, criminal and domestic violence records

In Switzerland, third party character references for each gun licence applicant are not required

Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates that a gun licence should be denied or revoked

In Switzerland, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a permit to carry a hidden handgun, but is not required for a firearm licence

In Switzerland gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every 5 years

In Switzerland, authorities maintains a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition"

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

 

have you ever asked yourself why these things such as cars, are registered? These things are registered bcause they do not belong to you. Ultimately, they own them. Doubt me? Take a close look at your title. Is it a title or a certificate of title? If it says certificate of title, then someone else holds the original. That would be the state. That means they own it because they hold the title, not you. You merely lease the car with their blessing. Same with property. There is no longer such a thing as allodial titleship. They tax both. If you don't pay those darned taxes on the car you operate, you cannot use it. Operating a vehicle is a privilege, not a Right. If you don't pay property taxes, they take it away. Living on the piece of dirt you paid for is no longer a Right, but a privilege. If you don't pay your homage to the state (income taxes) they come and take everything you own until that debt is paid for. You don't even own your paycheck, you are merely allowed to use what's left over, and even that's regulated.
Let's apply those theories to guns. If you register them to the state, you no longer own them because than can be subject to taxes and regulation. Don't pay those taxes, they can come get them. If you don't follow the extensive rules and regulations, they can come get them. Confiscation. That reduces a Right to a privilege because of a myriad of rules and regulations that have been applied to a Right. Therefore, it becomes a privilege dependent upon the whim of the State.
Our Rights are not subject to the whims and emotional state of the nation. They are carved in stone.
You would change all of that because you don't trust yourself with a gun, therefore you trust no one else with a gun. A few broken minded people go off the deep end and you are not only ready, but willing to sell your Rights and everyone else's down the river because a few broken minds. You do realize that taking the guns away from us is not going to protect you from that. Criminals will never follow the law. They will still find a way to commit crimes. If they desire to kill, they will, by whatever means are available to them. McVeigh never used a gun. Those two fellows in Boston didn't use a gun on the crowds.. Kaczinski never used a gun. Folk in the ME seldom use guns to enact horrendous acts.
If only .07% of the guns in the gun ban list were ever used in the act of a crime, why ban all those other guns? Just because appears to be a good enough reason for you?
Regardless of what you believe, registration is the first step to confiscation. It erodes the rest of the BoR because without the means to protect those Rights, the rest become a minor obstacle to government, to be removed by force, if need be. Resistance will be ridiculously futile. Anyone that is in favor of no Rights can move someplace where there are none.
A regulated Right is not a Right, after all. It is a privilege that is subject to the whims of those who lead. We had to fight two wars on this continent to wrest those Rights from a tyrannical government and then were told we had those Rights because those Rights were earned by spilling blood. So those Rights were literally written in blood, and you would now profane those Rights, written in blood, because you're afraid? You don't need them? What a weak excuse for an American..............
What gives you the Right to tell me I can't or don't need my Rights.
Please, don't come back with the Lib standard reply.." This is a modern age. We have other means in place to protect those Rights." What are those stop blocks? Our elected officials? Hell, son, they are the ones that would dearly love to see the BoR diminished to such a point that they will be a far and distant dream. And if they can get the guns, what is to stop them from getting the rest? People like you? Hell, they are counting on you to help them because you are helping them now.

 

The intent of a gun ban/confiscation wasn't to decrease homicides?! Then what exactly was the intent that you sacrficed your freedom for?

Again, there has NOT been a stastically significant decrease in homicides (according to your own researchers). The "decrease" that you describe is not statistically significant and started in 2004 (seven years after the ban ended). If you plot the graph of linear regression from 1991 through 2003, then you will see an INCREASING line (although still statistically insignificant).

As I have said before, murder is murder: People killed by a knife, bat, firebomb, and gun are equally dead. Hence, I could care less about the nonsensical term "gun murders."

This is what YOU are doing. On the other hand, I agree with the research done by the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, (who actually admitted bias towards wanting the gun control law to be successful). His research, as well as research done in the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, have shown no statistically signficant effect of the gun ban/confiscation on homicides.

They are indeed a statistic, but they are irrelevant to your OP, which was about ALL HOMICIDES, not only mass shootings.

You clearly do not understand statisics. The line regression may point down, but the decrease is not statistically significant. Also, the direction of where the graph point depends on your starting point. If you graphed from 1997 through 2003, then the graph would point up. If you graphed from 1991 through 1999, then the graph would point up. If you started the graph in 1941 (when Australia had its lowest homicide rate in recorded history) and ended in 2010, then it would also point up.

Yet again, you talk about "suicides" which is entirely irrelevant to your OP (since your OP did not mention suicides at all). Rather, your OP was about HOMICIDES, so please do not hijack your own thread. Also, you mention "gun homicides" which is an absurd and loaded term. If a murderer uses a knife instead of a gun to kill his victim, is that victim any less dead?

Bias is everywhere. It is not enough to merely point out bias: You must show where there math is wrong to discredit them, and you clearly haven't done this.
More importantly, Dr. Baker's research agreed with the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn (who admitted a bias in favor of gun control). Dr. Weatherburn even commented on Dr. Baker's research by saying their study was "reputable" and "well-conducted," and concurred that the available data is insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. So what we have here is the equivalent of the Brady Campaign and the NRA agreeing on the outcomes of a study, and still you are try to call out "BIAS?!" Talk about desperation.

No. I am talking about comparing mass murder to mass murder. The weapon of choice is irrelevant: Dead is dead, regardless of the murder weapon.

There is no "implying" here: I am openly stating fact. By claiming that "there are less gun-related mass murders," you are ignoring mass murders due to all other means; this is plain dishonest, and yet another sign of desperation in this debate.

Absolutely not. If you look at my previous post, I already included several specific mass murders, involving both guns and arson. None of the arsons that I mentioned (Childers Palace Fire, Churchill Fire, and the Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire) involved bushfires: They involved an evil mass murderer setting fires to dwellings with people in them.

You are rambling. The fact of the matter remains that through October of 1996 through September of 1997 Australia enacted a Draconian gun ban and confiscation, and in 1998 and 1999 murders climbed to the highest level in the 15 years that you showed on the original chart in your OP. You may be happy with that, but that doesn't exactly sound like a succes in my book, and I doubt that the families of those killed share your sentiments.

I was merely pointing out that if such a Draconian gun control law utterly failed to decrease homicides in Australia, which is surrounded by water, then it is irrational to believe that any gun control law would have any effect in areas where guns can be smuggled across porous borders.

 

Didn't "sacrifice freedom" If you are relying on a gun to "ensure freedom" then you have already lost the battle. We did it to reduce mass shootings - and that it has done somewhat spectacularly

Sorry mate but in statistics you do not get to pick the bits you like - the overall trend is down

More selective statistics - prove our overall murder rate stayed the same despite a lower gun related homicide. In fact do that for any country. Plainly and simply the lethality of guns makes a difference. Although you can kill someone with a knife it is harder, takes more commitment, and is not subject to accidental firing

Read what Wang Sheng lee and Saudi said again

The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed. 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 reanalyze 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. (JEL C22, K19)
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Australia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf

Does not say NO effect - and they admit there has been no substitution effect in relation to murders now another study DID find an effect

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

And the overall trend in homicides is down - unless of course you are holding the graph upside down

And only picking those years and saying "the graph is up" is CHERRY PICKING. Mind you if you started the graph in 1920 it would be DOWN because there was some pretty nasty murders going on in Melbourne - but why did you pick 1941 as a start point - was something happening around 1941 that might have affected statistics on guns and homicide ? Oh! That is right WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOODY WAR!!

Bias when it is that blatant remains bias. Sorry do not agree - this is more like John Lott agreeing that Kleck conducted a decent study.

The Australian Institute of Criminology believes the trend is down

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/21/mr21.pdf

So, are you contending that the rate of mass murder has increased to compensate for the reduced number of mass shootings? Because you would be stretching the case.

Churchill Fire which I cannot find good data on, other than this entry in Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires

There is a lot of questions still about the Churchill fire

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...layed-with-fire/story-fnat7jnn-1226305557238#

Still cherry picking

It did decrease homicides if you look at the overall trend from 1996 onwards

 

Thing is, we have experienced an impressive decline in overall homicides since 1996 as well ( http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0312.pdf ), and while I am not sure what to attribute to it, I can say for certain it had nothing to do with gun control. You gave up what we would consider an important right for such a small gain (assuming gun control ended mass shootings). How many people were lost to mass shootings in Australia?

If you really want to curb needless deaths, why not ban / buy back all privately owned automobiles and force everyone to rely on public transportation? Surely it would save many lives and in a few generations your kids may be on here wondering why us crazy Americans are still holding on to our love of 4 wheeled death machines

 

EVERYTHING is registered here as well, including people...and when has the government come to take anything away from you?...this is all paranoia taken to extremes...

 

and lethal mass stabbings would be extremely difficult to carryout, even single slayings become more difficult and less lethal...fewer guns means fewer deaths it's unassailable logic.

 

so how does that comport with the statistics in America?

 

the same would apply to the usa should it follow the ozzie example...those who claim controlling guns won't work are just plain wrong...

 

Oh! You mean all we have to do is collect hundreds of millions of unregistered guns, and elliminate a porous border that see's criminal elements coming and going at will?

How bad was your gun problem before making gun ownership pointless?

Perhaps you could explain why homicides have dropped to almost half what they were in 1980, yet there are far more guns than ever?

 

You are clearly in denial, because Australia OBVIOUSLY did indeed sacrifice its freedom. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that goes hand-in-hand with self defense. Such a right to utilize the most modern personal defense tools of that era (be it a spear with a stone tip or a semi-automatic handgun) to protect oneself is as old as human civilization, and it is the cornerstone of a free and civilized society.

Additionally, private property rights were also trampled, inasmuch as the government confiscated these legally purchased items.

If a government denies the right to self defense AND the right to private property, then the people under that government cannot truly be free citizens. Rather, those people can only accurately be called subjects.

Repeating a lie again and again does not make it true.

It seems that you did not read my last post at all. The trend is down because YOU cherry-picked the datapoints. As I said in my last post, if you had a more complete data set, such as from 1941 (when the Australian homicide rate was at an all-time low of 0.8 per 100,000 people) to the present, you would seen an upwards slope of the linear regression. If you graphed the number of homicides from 1991 through 1999, then you would also see an upwards slope of the linear regression. If you graphed from 1998 through 2003, then you would also see a upwards slope of the linear regression.

I find it comical that you are accusing ME of "cherry picking" when I am clearly offerring a more complete set of data points to graph that prove your error (while you cling to only one set of data points). This seems to be more of that classic liberal projectionism that I've read so much about.

Your graph in your OP proved that for me, and your country's researchers agree with me.

I guess not for the Australian homicide rate. Otherwise you would have statistically significant data proving this (which you don't )

Then why hasn't the overall homicide rate gone down in Australia despite the "gun-related homicide" rate decreasing?

Perhaps YOU should read what they said again. Why don't I sum it up from you: There was no statistically significant change in the homicide rate. If there was, they would have included such a notable result in their publication.

For the millionth time, the change is not statistically significant, AND you are cherrypicking random points of time. As I have said multiple times already, if you graph the homicide rate from 1941 to the present, you will see an INCREASE in the trend. If you graph from 1991 to 1999, then you will see an INCREASE in the trend. If you graph the year immediately after the gun ban (1998 ) through 2003, you will see an INCREASE in the trend. Regardless of this INCREASE in the number of homicides in Australia, the change is still statistically insignficant.

No. What YOU are doing is cherry-picking. I, on the other hand, am using a more complete data set: More points of data (e.g. more years) means more significant results.

Because it was the nadir of the homicide rate in Australia on record (0.8 per 100,000), and the same evil guns available today were available back then. Thus, it was a quite logical place to start, since if your gun ban was truly effective, then it should decrease homicide rates to less than that of 1941. News flash: It didn't.

When you have two researches (one in support of gun control and another against gun control) who agree with each other's results, then that is the OPPOSITE OF BIAS. In fact, it cannot possibly be less biased that that.

No. It would be more analagous to the president of the NRA agreeing with the president of the Brady Campaign.

They state that the trend was down since after 2002 (just after the number of homicides were at an all-time-high). The data includes through the year 2010, when the homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000. While this is still very low compared to most nations, your homicide rate was 0.8 per 100,000 in 1941, and it hovered around 1.0 per 100,000 through the 1940s. Additionally, compared to our state of Vermont (with its lax gun laws), the homicide rate is about the same (1.1 per 100,000 in 2010 and 1.3 per 100,000 in 2011).

So not only is there nothing in that report that shows an correlation with the 1996-1997 gun ban, the homicide rate is STILL higher in a period after the ban then in a period before the ban, and it is no different than one of our states with relatively lax gun-control laws.

How is a logical conclusion "stretching the case." If you tell me that "gun-homicdes" are down and "gun-related mass murders" are almost nonexistent, and I PROVE that the overall homicide rate is statistically no unchanged and that mass murders are clearly still occurring, then what else can you possibly conclude?

There are also still a lot of questions about Sandy Hook, but a mass murder is a mass murder.

You certainly are.

Yes: Immediately after the ban the number of homicides increased: They reached a 20-year high in 1999, and remained elevated until 2003. The decrease in the crime rate beginning in 2003 has no proven relationship with your 1996 gun ban.

This whole discussion is entirely moot because, as your own researchers have nicely stated, the change in the homicide rates (e.g. the increase AND the decrease) after the 1996 gun ban through 2010 are not statistically significant. End of story.