Your gun laws are a mistake: National Rifle Association to Australia

That is totally irrelevant.

In 1995, criminals suspected a potential victim might be carrying a gun or have one handy. In 1996, due to the severe gun control and ban, criminals knew the person was not carrying a gun and likely did not have one handy.

Pre-1996 Australia, crime trends were down just as they were in almost all industrialized Western nations. Then in 1996, crime rates in Australia increased tremendously.

And it was all crime rates. It wasn't just assault which might be due to a reduced drinking age or something similar. It wasn't just in one state which could be blamed on a local law. It was all crime all over Australia.

There was only one major event in 1996 that would cause that - the gun ban. If you have a better explanation to why crime suddenly bloomed in 1996, lets hear it.

 

You're relying on correlation, not causation. In keeping with the usual way of proving claims you're going to have to show some causative evidence. But don't waste your time. There is none. Because we don't keep firearms to protect ourselves from crooks the bans didn't matter, that is my point.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

 

You are wrong, you make a blanket statement for all AUS that Australians don't keep guns for self-defense. Prove that claim, which I dismiss as total BS. And you are really grasping it some grossly false "evidence" in your snopes links.

The above link makes several very subjective claims (such as the one you make, that Australians don't keep firearms for self-defense, but absolutely nothing to justify it) and then they claim that 6 years of crime data (1995-2000) isn't enough to make any judgement on AUS gun laws.

Considering I used 1992-2013 crime data - 22 years of data - this snopes argument has been overcome by events. The data is in, AUS crime rates skyrocketed as soon as the gun ban went into effect.

LOL, you didn't even read this one. It agrees with me very closely. Homicide increased when the gun ban went into effect, the crime reports show it was up 16% by 2001, then decreased. It is now 1.9.

But whats interesting is that if you extrapolate the pre 1996 homicide rate to today as if the pre-gun ban trends were not interrupted by the gun ban, it shows AUS would be around 1.9 anyway.

So you totally fail on both accounts.

Instead of trying to claim the crime wave was not due to the gun laws/ban, why don't you explain the huge crime wave that began so dramatically in 1996? If it was not the gun ban, then what was it?

 

For you to link the gun ban to the crime rate requires an argument that shows causation. You're relying on correlation. I could be facetious and tell you the crime rate was due to a range of causes, but I won't. I will ask you to show a causative relationship between the two.

 

I don't think any studies have been done regarding this, but you have to acknowledge that we have two major countries (UK and AUS) that both had huge increases in crime. Both of these huge increases came directly on the heels of gun bans.

At face value it's pretty convincing, but if you don't think the increase in violence was due to the gun bans what are your opinions on why it happened in the UK and AUS.

 

I simply don't know why it happened. But one thing tells me that if it was the ban(s) then the crime rate should have kept growing or remained static. Instead it's been all over the shop. That tells me crime rate increases are caused by multiple factors.

 

Correlation and causation are not independent.

But humor me and tell me how the AUS crime bubble was due to a range of causes.

Gun banners always deny facts and claim all data is false if it runs contrary to their gun ban attitude. Instead of just saying "no no no" but never offering anything constructive, explain why AUS crime exploded in 1996.

 

I'm not sure if I'd use the term "exploded", but you're entitled to your hyperbole. The causes of crime are legion, heck if I could pin them down I'd be the best criminologist in the world. Rather than putting it at the feet of one policy (which for the record I thought then and I think now was stupid, populist garbage) you need to look at multiple causes and trends. I'm not at all sure of the trend pre-1996 or post-1996 but I'm happy to go and find out and report back. But have to get to work now so will log in when I can.

 

I'm not sure about AUS but the only way the UK could get their crime down was to hire an additional 15,000 police after the gun bans. Only then did it start to drop significantly.

 

The Second Amendment applies to Australia too damn it. That is about as historically accurate as any other NRA interpretation of it since the 70's

 

why do anti gun posters make such obviously silly straw man arguments? the Supreme court seems to have agreed with the NRA a bit more than it has the Graboids in the Dem Party

 

As much as I nostalgia for good old days... The second amendment had been interpreted wrong for a long time. The second amendment as interpreted in Heller and McDonald is the correct interpretation. The second amendment is and always will be an Individual right to private gun ownership.

 

So then in at least 2 cases there was a mens rea involved. Getting back at the hostel owner, you'd sing a different tune if it was "Someone just did a drive by with a homemade mac 10 because they were pissed at the owner." or for the old folks home "someone shot up the place because they wanted to be the first responder and play the hero"..

Both count.

 

Gun control in the 20th and 21st Centuries in Britain has always been pretty strong. I'm not sure it contributed to a rise in crime. I think there were other causes.

 

There's always mens rea in crime, goes back to Blackstone, no mens rea, no offence.

 

Pardon me sir rules lawyer: specifically a mens rea that would qualify one for at least one type of murder.
(depraved heart murder, or negligent homicide in either case. Whatever the aussies call it, criminal actions leading to death are generally termed a homicide of one sort or another)

 

Mens rea is a catch-all term for the mental state required to be convicted of a crime. Some offences such as murder require a definite form of intention - at common law for murder it's "malice aforethought". Some crimes only require a general intention or even recklessness or negligence. Many of the general defences to criminal charges focus on mens rea. Murder is defended by arguing recklessness or negligence and breaking it down to manslaughter. The insanity defence is based on mental incapacity which removes culpability completely.

 

I'm aware of what mens Rea is. Are you aware of what depraved heart murder or negligent homicide are?

de·praved-heart murder
[di-prāvd-hÄ rt-]
*)a murder that is the result of an act which is dangerous to others and shows that the perpetrator has a depraved mind and no regard for human life(*)NOTE: Depraved-heart murder is usually considered second- or third-degree murder.(*)- See more at: http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/murder.html#.dpuf

Recklessness like starting a fire in a hostel over a simple dispute or in an old folks hole because you wanted to play hero.
Or we can do negligent homicide:

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/homicide.html

It's hard to translate who would get charged with what where and how that informs a reading of the crime statistics or blotter of another nation. I'm sure Australia has some things as violent crime you or I might find silly and the United states has things that are not they would push to have or would find silly etc.

So how are we to define killing someone with an act one knows or should know has a serious chance to maim or kill someone, when the act is motivated out of variously a desire for vindication in a simple dispute involving the burning of a hostel, or a burning of an old folks home motivated by glory? Shall we just call it boys will be boys and (*)(*)(*)(*) off to the nearest purveyor of spirits? I think not. We'd probably call it _______________ homicide. There's only one sort of homicide Stat I don't mind seeing and that is justifiable homicide. So any other word goes in that blank and I'm going to think a homicide, a person killing a person, occurred and since it wasn't justified it wasn't acceptable ie a violent crime. Doesn't really matter so much to if they did a drive by or set the place ablaze. People are still dead.

 

Australia, even in the code states and territories, pretty much follows the common law on homicide so we're not familiar with depraved heart murder and negligent homicide.

Crimes are definitely labelled, interpreted and recorded differently across the world. Heck even in our country we still have problems with comparisons. One day we'll have one criminal law or code, like Canada, and allow for different jurisdictions to have their own civil systems as suits them, such as Quebec and Louisiana.

The examples you give of fire-setting would be defined here as arson and murder.

 

Depraved heart is rolled into common law murder. We've got it as a statutory charge here (murder 2 in most places) but under the english common law (which is what the US UK and OZ etc share) it was just "murder". The malice aforethought bit does not have to include malice against the person (ie intentional death) or that they die etc. It refers to the frame of mind that is either deliberate, criminally negligent, or reckless.


Indeed we are talking about setting a fire intentionally meaning it to take hold of a building that is occupied, which leads to death.
That's either deliberate murder or reckless (depraved heart) murder. Or in the common law just : Murder.

We got off on that because someone (I don't recall who nor can I be bothered to check. Like a vegan I'm sure they'll speak up eventually) intimated that such a thing would somehow not be murder or was somehow different than shooting several someones in say a drive by.



http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2730&context=lawreview if you go through this there is an interesting bit about why the english didn't have a set distinction for murder by lying in wait vs murder by reckless conduct and just called it all "murder". You can skip to this part by ctrl f plus type english.

 

I always find American judgements difficult to read but I downloaded the pdf and will give it a go later, thank you.

 

Yeah its from the 1800's too so get ready for uselessly floral language!!

 

I remain sir, your most humble and obedient servant

 

I always imagine the judges like this http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3s882w

Makes for more pleasant reading.