So far I have seen no evidence of actually looking at these things - we have proven that the original premise of this thread was a crock of rubbish
no, you haven't. He used the term 'crime-ridden', you said it's hardly crime ridden - that was far from his point. You're just dancing around terms, and it's stupid. Whether or not it's fair to say Britain is 'crime-ridden', his point is that the crime rates went up. As far as I saw, the link in the OP didn't seem to verify that well, but I've seen that elsewhere. Since you feel fit to blow your own trumpet, "i've proven x," well. I've won.
Is this enough statistics for you http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-c...-statistics-since-gun-ban-homicides-down.html Meanwhile just about every second or third post of mine it to a link - can you boast as much?
During the same time, the murder rate in the US dropped, not a little, but by about 50%. Despite having the highest rate of gun ownership in our history, we've hit our lowest homicide rate in half a century. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates The rate has been declining for a long time. A look, below, at Australia's long term homicide rate, and that of other Anglo countries, suggests it would have fallen just the same. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf nvm the fact that you didn't respond to what I f***ing said.
Now who was talking about multiple impact factors on crime?? One impact here - Crack cocaine has mostly been replaced by other drugs but there also could be other factors such as a good economy until a couple of years ago, tougher sentencing in the USA etc etc etc Now WHAT question - remind me - you made some allusions but no actual point so far
This just doesn't stand up to basic logic and reason, given the higher incidence of rape and assault. You can claim federal versus state blah blah blah, but I am just not buying that as a reasonable explanation.
Our crime statistics do not differentiate between rape and sexual assault - if you do not believe me check out the Australian Institute of criminology http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf
That is only relevant if you can show that when you add the two together for the U.S. stats , the U.S. has a substantially higher rate.
What the?????? Noooooo - you are the one claiming the USA has a lesser rate so the burden of proof falls on you, I have proven that our statistics seem higher because of a broader inclusion base. I am not out to prove that the USA is lower than us - just that comparing the two countries is futile
WHat the???? YES, in order for your comment to be relevant, you must show that it has some material value. I have shown that Australia ranks far worse than the U.S. in violent crime stats. You claimed this is only due to some classification issue. OK, PROVE IT!
Nooooo, All I have to do is show that your figures are irrelevant and immaterial - which I have done - I linked to the AIC report but if you want me to I will link again. Further analysis and speculation is up to you
Actually you cannot do that until you show me that your data disproves mine, which you have failed to do. It has become quite evident that your figures are NOT relevant by the way you are backpedalling so violently!
Oh Yes I have Posted earlier in thread - Pdf File page 23 http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf It also includes cases of incest, which given that Tasmania is a lot like Arkansas in that 90% of the state has the same DNA - thatwill skew figures somewhat Now while most people think of rape as stranger rape that is not where the predominance of rape occurs A Whopping 73% of rapes are either family members or someone known to the person - so where would having a gun help with that? 
Yes I think it has. The type of crime has changed too. I get the sense that there is more violence than there used to be, but that's just an observation from media reports and the odd talk with former colleagues.
Why make any comparison along those lines? For a comparison to be valid there have to be some sort of common features, simply pulling countries in a region together and saying because they're located in the same region that comparisons are valid is silly. As well as that the attempt to somehow link private firearms ownership with crime is also, as I have been trying to argue, flawed. Why bother? I mean it's not a moral issue. If a country or region or state or whatever wishes to allow its citizens to get and use firearms then that's fine, no problems. How they work out the regulation of doing it is okay too, people will soon speak up if they don't like an aspect of it. I understand the annoyance at others who may say that a country shouldn't do this or shouldn't do that when it comes to a domestic policy issue that affects only the members of that country or state. I get it. It's nobody else's business. The best response is, "we choose to have it our way, you can have whatever you like your way", and be done with it. If there's a domestic debate on the issue then have at it - those of us without a dog in the hunt can comment from the sidelines or shut up, our choice. But let's not put up with false information about the facts about certain issues. And as I've said before, comparisons are odious. Why does America have a high - relatively high for an advanced western democracy - homicide rate? Lots of reasons. I am not going to say it's down to private firearms being so available because that is only one aspect and there are a lot more aspects to be investigated. - - - Updated - - - Ours could never get that organised.
Your claim is that Australia ranks far worse than the U.S. in violent crime statistics. Your claim to have shown that. I could ask what the point of this is but I suppose it's to show that a high rate of private ownership of firearms in one country prevents crime and the low rate of private ownership in another country doesn't prevent crime. That would be fine if the rate of crime was influenced by the rate of private ownership of firearms. I don't think it does. I think that the high rate of private ownership of firearms is due to several factors: 1.Cultural and historical reasons. 2. Availability. 3. Price. 4. Ease of lawful acquisition. 5. Need. If we have to make direct comparisons then let's do so: 1. The United States was originally a collection of thirteen agricultural colonies. The area wasn't uninhabited but was populated by natives who were quite populous. Treaties were struck with the original owners and where treaties didn't work then armed conflict was used. Because of the nature of settlement of the colonies (not the conflict with Indians, the wilderness and agricultural mix) people living there had to be self-reliant in just about every aspect of life and that included self-defence and the ability to get food. Both of those had to be achieved through the very competent use of firearms. That competence has long been admired in American culture and has been handed down across the generations. 1. Australia was originally a single penal settlement on the eastern seaboard of the landmass. It was heavily regulated due to it being a penal establishment (although the hijinks they got up to were hair-raising nonetheless). Soldiers and Royal Marines provided protection for the settlers as well as security over the convicts. In the area of the original penal settlement the indigenous people were not warlike and – despite some conflict on occasions – were generally peaceful. There was little or no exploration or settlement beyond the immediate area of the penal colony. There were no or very few setters who therefore had to look after themselves out in the bush. Private firearms were not required for self-defence or self-reliance and I would think in a penal colony they would have been restricted (just a supposition on my part. 2. There is much availability of firearms in the United States. This is down to having a lot of local manufacturers (although I do know that imported firearms are also available) to make them. The Second Amendment as interpreted by the US Sup Ct has extended the historical interpretation of the right to bear arms to the point that state legislatures (and federal ones as well I would think) are somewhat limited in what laws they can pass to manage the availability of firearms to the general public. 2. Firearms are available in Australia. I believe most are imported (legally) but we did, still might, produce locally. Legal availability is not as unrestricted as in the U.S. and the requirements probably put off people who would otherwise purchase a firearm – most can't be bothered. (see 5.). 3. Price range is probably affordable for the average wage earner in the U.S. 3. Bloody expensive in Australia. 4. Ranges from reasonably difficult to quite easy in the U.S. 4. Is generally quite difficult but not impossible. in the U.S. 5. Hunting is a big sport in many areas of the U.S. Other forms of recreational shooting are also popular (ties in with 1.) There seems to be – from the comments here – a perceived need (perception is reality in this instance) to own a firearm for protection. 5. Hunting is a minority sport in Australia. Recreational shooting is not as strong as it used to be (historically Australia's gun clubs right from pre-Federation supplied regular soldiers and militia members). The average Australian does not feel the need to own a firearm for protection. I haven't address the crime statistics. I will if I have to.
Why NOT make comparisons along those lines. I used ALL 50+ countries around the U.S.. I also used all 13 countries around Australia both big and small in both regions. I can't help it if Australia fell in the middle 50% and the U.S. fell in the bottom 11% for homicides in our respective regions. Murder is murder, I don't care which way you cut it. On top of that he/she has been looking down his/her long skinny nose and has been making rude comments about the U.S. for years as if they are some how superior to us.
Yes but you DID cherry pick the countries you included by leaving out some of our largest (and indeed THE largest neighbours). And if you can find "rude comments" you are welcome to report them to me or the moderators. I try to be respectful to all members but I am trying, with limited success to dispel the misinformation surrounding guns. This very thread is premised upon misinformation
then, you have failed because all of your "myths" have been debunked . You a mod? or are you married to one of them? clarify this..........are you of authority in this forum?
So you are motivated by someone criticising the U.S.? Get over it, the big boys are always a target, whoever they are. Take the issues on directly and address them without deflection if you see them.
