Did Australia change the definition of their crimes? No, what was classified as a murder, rape or armed robbery in 1996 was the same classification used in 2013. Without trying to compare country to country, Australia passed draconian gun laws in 1996, including confiscation. They had higher number of murders for four of the next five years. Rapes went up. Armed robberies jumped 79%. Those numbers aren't made up.
It doesn't matter. Australia passed laws, and those laws, based on the data, didn't semester to have much effect on their violence. There's a negative correlation.
Crime rates have fallen in the USA and the number of guns and the number of people legally carrying pistols has gone way up. that sort of destroys the BM argument that more gun bans are needed.
Wrong again. Crime reporting is fairly standardized. While nations use different labels a may subdivide some crimes, the Western industrialized nations have well defined crime categories making comparisons possible. For example, AUS categorizes "assault" into 3 categories: Serious assault resulting in injury (offence 0211), Serious assault not resulting in injury (0212), and Common assault (0213). In the USA, assault is subdivided into sexual assault, aggravated assault, simple assault, felonious assault. When preparing violent crime statistics for international comarisons, for "assault" the AUS offence 0211 is used, aggravated assault is used for the USA - different labels, same crime.
As I have repeatedly told you, and I provided the exact links to you several times, the USA data comes directly from the FBI Uniform Crime Report Table 2, the AUS data comes directly from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports. And I know you looked up the data because you posted the homicide data before - but you no longer post it after I pointed out the increase in homicide (16% increase) in the years after the AUS gun ban went into full effect.
For those who get tired of the continual parroting of NRA talking points on this board: "For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres. "The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33) "Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates." https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-con...4/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
Actually we have changed some legislation spitting is now a serious offence as is any form of violence against health care workers And when you mention rape I KNOW you are not talking about Australian statistics because we do not keep stats on rape
You ALWAYS put the link with the picture - and the reason for that is that the picture does not match that link What someone has done is mash together 2 different statistics on one graph - which gets you a complete fail
No it is apples and cumquats It depends on the differing definitions of those two categories - ye gods!! there is difference even between our state legislation in relation to what those categories mean. NSW made spitting on a police officer a serious assault - it has not changed so much in Queensland until recently. How those laws are policed differ from country to country i.e. In America if the police break up a bar brawl they may not arrest all combatants whereas Australia you certainly will find yourself in front of a magistrate. Different legal systems also affect crime data But you know this because I have talked of this before
That's a bad autocorrect from my tablet software. Replace "semester" with "seem". - - - Updated - - - Have the various state definitions for murder, sexual assault or armed robbery changed between 1996 and 2013?
While gun homicides may have gone down, murders as a whole were higher for four of the next five years following the 1996 ban. If the NFA is to be given credit for saving lives, then the researchers must have assumed that without it there would have been even more homicides. With the NFA, Australia's homicide rate fell, between 1996 and 2013, at almost exactly the same rate of decline as that of the US over that same time period. Our only major gun law change was the expiration of the AWB, putting millions more "assault weapons" on the hands of citizens.
Do all our high crimes cities like Detroit, Flint, East St. Louis, etc. have more in common with 1st World European Nations, or more in common with 3rd World African and Hispanic Nations? Have you bothered to look at the demographics of these places?
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/victims.html It looks like for the most part the murder rate has gone down since the buyback. The AWB in the US is not comparable. It was not a buyback. People were allowed to keep the millions of assault weapons they already owned. Australia's buyback had a far greater effect on the number of guns in circulation. The US has had to have a much higher incarceration rate than Australia to achieve its decline in crime. It still has a significantly higher homicide rate than most developed nations despite keeping so many violent people behind bars.
The US has always had a higher homicide rate, regardless of gun laws in Australia. That ratio of US to Australian homicide rate was about 4.5:1 in 1996 and it's about 4.5:1 now. Yes, the murder rate in Australia has declined, close to 50%. And yes, the homicide rate in the US has declined, close to 50%. The difference is that Australia passed draconian gun laws and confiscated guns; the US allowed the AWB to expire and put millions more of them in citizens hands. The results of both actions: the same impact on the homicide rates in both countries. Imagine if Australia had not passed those laws. Would their decline in murder rate have been anywhere close to that of the US?
And the US had a higher gun ownership rate even before the ban. False comparison. What happened in Australia had a far greater effect on the gun supply and is thus a much better test of the relationship between guns and crime. America was a nation awash with hundreds of millions of guns before, during and after the AWB. Interestingly, America has experienced the greatest declines in crime in areas with the strictest gun control. Look at NYC, for example. It's a much safer city than it used to be. Homicide declined there by about 85% between 1990 and 2014. That may have a lot to do with more aggressive enforcement of gun control in inner city areas- police stopping people more often and searching them for illegal weapons.
Not provable, as there is no way to know what the true ownership rates were and are, and two, are you suggesting that the banning of certain cosmetic features on a small volume class of firearms somehow had an effect on the overall ownership rate, and that the change in ownership rate is responsible for the decline in homicides? The Australian buyback-confiscation reduced the number of guns in that country by 14%. Murders were higher for four of the next five years. Australia has more guns now than it did before the ban. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150 http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia-s-gun-numbers-climb.html Cite? All crime fell in NYC over that time period. All crime fell 80%; transit felonies fell 87%. It's hard to attribute this overall reduction to gun control, especially given that no new guns laws were put in place in NYC, which is regarded as one of the strictest cities in the US with regards to gun control. It's not certain how effective stop and search was in NYC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-wasnt-that-effective/?utm_term=.f36f9b47c45c I do take your point about actually enforcing the laws. We have plenty of gun control that isn't actually enforced. Let's enforce those laws prior to creating new ones that also won't/can't be enforced.
Two things: 1. I would be interested to see the stats on Firearm suicides. After the confiscation, it appears firearm suicides went down. How did it effect the overall suicide rate? Did suicides by other means increase? 2. Moral of the story.... Yes, confiscation works.
Aside from the fallacious post hoc/propter hoc argument, what do you have to back this up? - - - Updated - - - Where's Bowerbird and her CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION quip??
Aside from the fallacious post hoc argument It wasn't a buyback, it was a confiscation. You had no choice to give up your gun(s), the only question was if you would go to jail in the process.
http://www.mindframe-media.info/__d...13124/ABS-2016-Suicide-figures-2015_Final.pdf Males, slight decline. Females, flat. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010...tes-and-methods-suicide-between-1988-and-2007 "In 1988, the national male suicide rate per 100 000 males per annum was 21.0. The most common methods were shooting (5.93), hanging (5.14), gassing (4.43) and poisoning (2.56). Less common methods were jumping from a height (0.84), drowning (0.43) and suicide by sharp implement (0.43). Other methods, including electrocution, immolation and jumping in front of moving vehicles, accounted for a total of less than 1.17 per 100 000 per annum. In the following 10 years, there was a trend towards an increase in suicide by males, to a peak in 1998 when the national suicide rate was 28.3 per 100 000. This peak was associated with a near doubling of the rate of hanging, and occurred despite a 60% fall in firearm suicides between 1988 and 1998. Between 1998 and 2007, there were declines in suicides by hanging (by 29%), gassing (by 69%), shooting (by 34%), jumping (by 29%), use of sharp implements (by 25%) and drowning (by 46%). By 2007, the total male suicide rate had fallen to 13.9 per 100 000 per annum, a decline of 51% in 10 years. Suicides by methods other than hanging, shooting, gassing, poisoning, jumping, drowning or sharp implement declined as a proportion of suicides and, by 2007, accounted for 2.7% of suicides." The firearm suicide rate barely beat out the decline in the hanging suicide rate and lower than that by drowning. "Using meta-analysis, we found evidence of a modest but statistically significant decline of 8% in the pooled estimate of male suicide in Australia over the past 20 years, indicated by a rate ratio of 0.92 between the two decades (Box 2). Despite the fall in national rates of suicide among males, there was a significant increase in suicides among males in the NT. Meta-analysis did not show a significant decline in female suicide in Australia, despite significant falls in female suicide in NSW and Qld." So, minimal effect.
So it appears the confiscation of guns in Australia, only minimally brought down the overall suicide rate, in fact it went up a little directly after the confiscation. Guns have never been the preferred method of suicide by females so the fact that the stat remained roughly the same should surprise no one. Moral of the story: Gun confiscations only minimally (if at all) effect overall suicide rates. The effect is so minimal that the statistical fluctuations possibly have nothing to do with guns at all.
