The "Gun Culture" is NOT the problem

We are only talking about weather one state recognizes another states concealed licenses.

 

No, you've misinterpreted a few things there. The UCR is not comprehensive. The ABS and AIC stats are used from state and territory data collection agencies which are very consistent in what they measure.

The "gun policy" didn't fail. It did what it set out to do, limit the legal availability of certain types of firearms. I happen to disagree with the policy and I disagreed with it when it was brought in, but it's achieved its objective.

Where commentators such as yourself get it wrong is conflating crime with firearms control laws in Australia. That's not how it works. In fact there is a null relationship between the rate of armed crimes and firearms control laws in Australia. One of the reasons for this is the very great differences between Australia and the US. Just as I get annoyed when reading in our press that the US has failed in its gun laws (your business, not ours is my main objection) I get the same when I read claims like yours.

 

Oh, sorry for the confusion

 

The FBI UCR - and for some crimes when combined with the CDC WISQARS database - is the best source for crime data in the USA. Its lacking in some areas, most notably in crimes committed by police officers, but it is by far the most complete single source. Every city and state in the USA provides defined data to the FBI for the UCR.

Australia's gun policy was supposed to stop mass killings and reduce crime. It failed in both. In the 20 years before Port Arthur, there were 7 mass killings. In the 20 years since Port Arthur, there were 6 mass killings with 2 more that were stopped before the shooters (and yes, these 2 used firearms) were able to kill enough people to count as a mass killing although they wounded a lot of people (so if the shooter is a bad shot, I guess its not newsworthy?). While firearm related crime decreased, total crime increased significantly.

 

It would have been nice if you included links in your original post.

Your attack on the red quote of mine addresses only one premise of my arguement and does not invalidate that claim.

My arguement is solely regarding gun violence the dete of the issue, namely mass shootings in particular as I said just 2 sentances later. As I said, We must at least bring about a genuine inquiry into the root causes of the issue. For example a vast majority of public outcry is because of mass shootings. Look at the arguments being made. Other comparable western countries do not experience the number of mass shootings the United States does.

The 50% decrease in violent crime has nothing specifically to do with gun violence. It does not show any increase or decrease in gun violence, only occurences of crime.

Perhaps it did show statistics of specfically gun violence, this still would not prove that the 50% decrease in crime reported by the FBI was caused by an increase in gun ownership.

Furthermore, I would like to see links to support the claim that "Starting in the late 1980's the various states began relaxing their gun control regulations"

You make the arguement that because of state gun laws gun ownship has increased, therefore reducing crime this has not been proven beyond doubt based on the statistics you have included.

My arguement is solely regarding gun violence, and namely mass shootings in particular as I said just 2 sentances later.

I should clarify precisely what I'm arguing as it's not quite clear, as well as some of my views.


It is senseless not to give thought to reform of gun laws in regards to mass shootings, and as I said, once again there must be geniune inquiry as to if there is a need for stricter gun control. The public backlash to recent mass shooting has sparked a fierce debate about gun control. It is my opinion that this debate is the very reason the topic was created by Regular Joe. Furthermore, I am considering this on the nation-state level, as the issue would be decided by the state. I address it in the the thoughts of public opinion, and argue that infact there needs to be clear evidence. I have not explicitly stated that you would in fact be less safe or more safe if you wandered around with a gun. The rhetorical questions about a robber were included only to illustrate that there must be clear, empirical evidence for statements like the following that genuinely validates the claim. So far both you, and the OP have failed to do so.

A.Guns make people safer.
B.Crime has decreased because of increased gun ownership.
C.Guns should be further restricted

This list should continue.

A priori and a posteriori.

The my original response to the claims made by the OP of the topic states that he did not present any empirical evidence for any claim he made, and all other words are in regards to my opinion that he clearly doesn't give any thought to the idea that there should be clear facts presented to validate the claim that gun culture is not the problem. I clearly said in my original response to the OP that restricting guns may reduce gun violence, and did not say that restricting guns will reduce gun violence.

I will restate, in currently saying that you have not yet presented solid evidence for your arguement that because gun ownship has increased, violent crime has been reduced. No statistics were presented that proved this claim beyond doubt. Even the Australian crime statistics do not prove that there is in fact an absolute correlation between gun ownership and crime.

Here is a little logical tid bit that perhaps you should apply the arugment you're making.

I could make the arguement that because rent has gone up in the San Diego, there are more homless people. Sat, I can also statistically prove claim that rent has increased, and the homeless population has increased. However this clear would not prove beyond doubt that infact higher rent is the reason for increased homelessness. Perhaps another city (Australia?) shows the same trend. This does not automatically make the arguement true does it? What about every other U.S city? If it was shown that in each city in the United States that when rent increases, homelessness increases. This is now the beginning of a solid arguement!

 

No, the FBI UCR shows that all violent crime, and gun related crime, has decreased >50% since 1992. If guns were a major contributing factor in crime then the US should not have a reduction in crime, but an increase. And Australia should not have an increase in crime, but a decrease.

Australia makes a good case because AUS tracks crimes in detail and implemented very strict gun control (banning many guns) in 1996, making a good before-and-after comparison. The USA is also a good case because it went the other direction, and in a major way, with a nationwide movement to reverse gun control starting in the late 1980's. Two similar nations taking opposite paths with opposite results.

On mass shootings, many other modern nations have mass shootings. It is not unique to the US. The US has a few more (they are rare everywhere) because the US is a much larger nation than Australia or European nations. As far as I can tell, Australia had 8 mass killings in the 20 years before the Port Arthur killing, and had 6 (none by firearm) in the 20 years since Port Arthur and the gun control/ban. There were actually 2 more AUS incidents in which many people were shot, but most were wounded so technically these don't count mass killings - interesting how when the killer is a bad shot and just wounds people its not taken as seriously. Also interesting how the mass killers continued killing, they just switched from guns to knives and arson. There goes the claim that gun control stops mass killers.

Crime in the US is very highly correlated with city size, the larger the city the higher the violent crime rate (the correlation is between 0.5-0.7 depending upon the UCR data used), since the US has more very large cities than other nations, the US is going to have higher national crime rates.

The real root causes of violent crime are not the availability of guns, but the poor economics of inner cities where people are stuck with no future and no way out. Solve the inner city problem and you solve the problem of high crime rates in the US - but solving the inner city problem means a lot of politicians are going to have to admit failure and give up all their power, and that's not going to happen.

 

Considering the economic status of the united states as a whole, it is dishonest to compare its statistics to the statistics of civilized, developed nations that experience economic stability and well being. Massive unemployment and poverty rates logically demand that the united states be compared to the nations of Mexico, South America, Colombia, Africa, and others.

 

The bulk of our gun violence stats come from the same unemployment and poverty as the bold above.

 

That and the "i wanna be a thug" culture.

 

Time for some evidence, if you don't mind. I'm not suggesting your claims are invalid, I simply want to be able to see the evidence that allowed you to draw your conclusions.

The gun buybacks (there were two, long weapon and handgun) were supposed to limit the legal availability to certain types of firearms (let's stay with the first one, the long weapon buyback) that would allow rapid, repetitive fire. The actual problem was Tasmania's slack firearms laws. But the rest of us got caught up in the Howard hysteria. Bryant got his weapons legally, that's what spooked everyone. From memory there was no referencing general crimes, just the chance of someone legally obtaining a long weapon that would allow a lot of fire in a short time, which was what Bryant achieved.

The discussion regarding firearms restrictions and crime in general might be valid in the US but it doesn't fly in Australia. There is no general idea that we need to have firearms on our persons or in our homes and vehicles to feel safe. People here don't require firearms for personal protection as a general rule. I'm not sure if that's the prevailing idea in the US. Most of the Americans I know personally don't discuss firearms use but I know at least one who has a CCW permit, he just doesn't make an issue of it. What they have stored in their homes, I don't know.

That's a roundabout way of saying that this is why, when the first buyback was announced, that the general populous here didn't rise up and cry that we couldn't defend ourselves without personal firearms. There's simply no need. So using the Australian experience as an example for the perceived need in the US to defend against armed criminals isn't valid. And it's so the other way around. I often hear others talking about the "lax" firearms laws in the US. My response is usually along the lines of, "but they need their firearms". And I'm not being sarcastic. It's a shame but that's the reality for many Americans I suppose.

 

The fact is that crime in Australia increased tremendously immediately after the gun laws went into full effect in 1996, previously decreasing crime trends reversed. Whether Australians think or feel they need (or don't need) guns for protection is a problem of education and public relations, it has no bearing on the effectiveness of firearms in deterring crime.

In the USA, in the 1970's, the prevailing thought was that guns are not needed for protection, and that armed citizens would not have an impact on crime. At that time, the general population did not cry that people could not defend themselves without firearms - just like you describe the general attitude in Australia. After 30 years of experience with an armed population, the USA now knows better.

There is no doubt that the US and Australia have very different social ideas about firearms. Where I live, about 1 in 5 adults has a concealed carry permit, few businesses ban firearms from their property, a popular sticker on cars is the NRA membership sticker, a favorite location for company picnics is a big local shooting range. Guns are a part of life just like cars, many teens have their own rifle or shotgun, I wouldn't give a man with a pistol on his hip or a woman with a pistol in her purse a second glance. And the crime rate where I live is far lower than US & AUS national rates.

Many gun banners would be shocked at what I just described, but America is divided - gun banners live in the big gun banning crime riddled cities, where I live is typical of much of the rest of America.

 

Thank you, Battle 3.
Being a criminal in the US is getting harder. There's a kind of gauntlet they have to traverse. During the commission of their crimes, there is the real and present danger of being justifiably killed by a random Citizen. Once the cops get onto them, they need to behave and be good little abject morons, or they may be shot by a cop. Only once they've passed those two tests, they have the chance of escape, or the good graces of our justice system.
Today, as I was ferrying some people to the airport in the cab, I saw 2 bad actors being apprehended. I dunno wut they done, but as one responding Metro unit zoomed by me, they ran across the street. He flipped a smoky U, and the Metro behind me jumped right in behind them. As we passed the cars, I saw both idiots face down on the ground, with zip ties on their wrists. It has to hurt, being taken down that hard and fast.
This is how crime is deterred. You can be shot dead. Or, you can be shot dead. Or, you can be beat up, and coddled by the justice system. I approve.

 

I keep making the point that the idea of using firearms to deter crime is not widely held in Australia. Let me give you a couple of practical examples. In most police forces, certainly in the one I used to serve, only a number of police officers were armed whilst on duty. Operational officers only were and are armed. So you have uniformed police walking around who are not on operations, who might be prosecutors, engaged in admin duties, training and so on, all unarmed, all in public. General duties officers don't have personally-issued firearms and hand them in at the end of their shift. Detectives can take their weapons home because they're personally issued and they might be called out from home (although it never happened to me). But patrol officers, no, they go back in storage and are issued to the next shift and the cops go home unarmed.


Security officers in my state are permitted to wear handguns when they are working but only if they are guarding property (e.g. transporting cash). They can't wear them when on close personal protection duties.


Both these examples are probably in stark contrast with the US (I know it's difficult to generalise). They go to showing that the situation in both countries is different. As you point out, the US has an armed population. I can tell you that Australia doesn't.


My point is not to suggest one is superior to the other. My point is to state that the two countries are so vastly different from one another that making comparisons is pointless as they don't stack up.


As for crime rates in Australia post-1996, I invite you to post some evidence to support your claim.

 

The question is not whether the AUS population thinks they are safer being unarmed, the question is whether AUS would be more or less safe being armed. One is a perception, and given AUS has suffered under a gun banning government and media for 30 years, its not a surprise that Australians think their gun laws made them safer and they don't need to be armed. The data indicates AUS would be safer (less crime) being armed.

Police being armed is a topic of discussion in the US. Police are out of control in the US, since 9/11 cops have killed more people than all US deaths due to terrorism including soldiers killed in Iraq & Afghanistan.

This is also an example of perception versus reality. Being a cop is presented as being one of the most dangerous jobs in the nation, but the data shows being a cop is quite safe, in 2013 only 27 cops were killed feloniously (by or while chasing a "bad guy"), another 49 were accidentally killed while on the job (27 in car/motorcycle accidents). Being a cop doesn't even come close to making any of the "most dangerous jobs" lists.

Yet people think being a cop is dangerous, even cops are trained into thinking its extremely dangerous and is a factor in the high rate of cops killing innocent people.

See the below, sources are the FBI UCR and the ABS Crime Report database, rates are per 100,000 people. Note the magnitude of the numbers, while the US has a higher homicide rate (4.6 versus 2.0) the violent crime rate difference is in the 100's. Also note the increase in homicide in AUS immediately after the gun laws went into effect.

 

First to a point of agreement. I can't speak for cops in the US but here being a cop isn't physically dangerous. Mining and construction, I think, are the most physically dangerous. Being a cop is probably more damaging psychologically, but that's another issue.


Now for other points.


I've long believed that the buybacks achieved nothing in terms of crime. I'm not sure if the intent of the policy was to do anything about crime anyway. I suspect not. The PM who instigated them, John Howard, was a populist above all else. Much was made at the time of the “courage” of a conservative PM who would dare to take on the supposedly conservative firearms owners of Australia. What rubbish. Most Australians don't care one way or the other about firearms so it was a move that wouldn't damage Howard's chances of re-election. It was dressed up to look like statesmanship, it was nothing of the sort, it was weak, populist politics. I didn't and don't support the buybacks.


But we haven't “banned” guns. We've restricted them. The post-Port Arthur buyback was aimed (sorry) at semi-autos and repeaters with “large” magazines. Bryant was able to murder many people because of the capacity of his firearms and that's what got the attention. Also a known nutter could legally buy firearms and ammo and that was part of the problem, but it was Tasmania's slack gun laws that allowed that, the rest of us had pretty good checks in place to avoid that. As much as I love Tasmania as a state (very picturesque and historic in Australian terms) it was socially very backward for many years. They even had a bloody wallaby hunt organised to benefit a footy club for crying out loud.
http://www.aussietowns.com.au/town/avoca-tas


I suspect most of the “violent” crime in Australia is in the various categories of unarmed assault. I'd have to wade through the statistics though and I'm not inclined to do so. I also suspect most of our murders are not with firearms. I could go and have a look for that I suppose, might not be too involved as we don't have that many murders. I might need to go off and do that later. I suspect most of our murders are with edged weapons, but again, I'll have to check.

 

One would think if government thinks a gun buyback (as if they were owned by the government in the first place) program would work they would start a drug buyback program.

 

I'd support a Presidential buyback.

 

They'd be terrified. Idiots won't even consider regulation.

 

That's because governments make huge sums of money from drug traffic. Why would they want to end a major source of revenue?

 

I'm trying to get information to support my claims and I don't want to give you a stats fest and drive everyone stupid with numbers. If you recall I am of the opinion that in Australia the buybacks had a null effect on crime. There are a few papers on that but they seem to disagree with each other. So I'm going to try and look at the nature of firearms crime in this country. The data below is from a 1996 report (yes it's old). But it illustrates what I'm trying to say.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Category[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Firearm Incidents in each Category as % of all Firearm Homicide Incidents[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Firearm Incidents as % of Total Homicide Incidents for each separate Category[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Total number of Homicide Incidents[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Contract Killing[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]92.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Suicide Pact [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]62.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Carelessness [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]56.1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Disputes over Drugs[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]40.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]74[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Revenge [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]31.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]147[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Disputes over Money[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]28.2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]78[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Between Intimate Partners [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]34.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]23.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]685[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Robbery [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]22.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]188[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Mental Disorder[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]22.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]94[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Other/Unknown [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]15.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]17.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]428[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Trivial Altercation[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]301[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Sexual Assault [/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]84[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Child Abuse[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]76[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi075.pdf

- -

 

I'm not sure that's the reason. They've spent the best part of 50 or so years telling us that drugs are bad for us (duh - drugs have an effect on us, that's it, some beneficial, some not) and because we're not able to control ourselves we'll be chucked into prison for using them without authorisation. Just like firearms, the way to go is regulation. But I'm getting off topic.

 

Are you aware of the concept of civil asset forfeiture, and how it is applied in the war on drugs?

 

Yes I am.