Taylor and Li (2015, Do fewer guns lead to less crime? Evidence from Australia, International Review of Law and Economics) report: The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun control laws and facilitated the buyback of over 650,000 firearms. While several studies have investigated the effect of the NFA on firearm deaths, none has looked at its impact on crimes. In this paper we adopt the difference-in-difference identification approach to examine the impacts of the NFA on crimes. We find that one and two years after the NFA was enacted, there were significant decreases in armed robbery and attempted murder relative to sexual assault, with weaker evidence in relation to unarmed robbery. This is clear cut evidence that gun control doesn't just reduce gun-related crime. It is also evidence supporting the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis.Added it to the growing list of objective research that doesn't fit with the real flamebaiters: those that hide from the evidence!
Crime has gone down since CHLs were issued to Texans in 1996. We have almost 800,000 civilians carrying in Texas every day. Also, anybody who can legally own a gun can now carry it loaded and concealed in their car. We have no restrictions on gun size and capacity and private parties can buy and sell guns without any type of registration or paper trail. With hordes of illegals pouring into Texas, it's good to be able to protect yourself. You can't put a price on freedom. Enjoy your nanny state.
Present any and all evidence that proves conclusively, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the drop in firearm-related crimes did not lead to an increase in various crimes committed with other implements.
as I recall that evidence was suspect at best and really has no relevance to the USA where gun bans have resulted in more crime. Furthermore, these studies never account for the massive benefits many derive from using and owning firearms
same in the USA as at the number of guns increases and the number of Americans carrying concealed weapons has gone way up
Where is the link to the evidence itself? Where are the citations and sources? - - - Updated - - - Despite the number of privately owned, and unregistered, firearms going up, and the number of places in which they may be carried increasing.
The Australian experience - and context - is very different from the American and I agree with those who argue that it can't be transposed. And that goes both ways. The Australian context is firstly that we don't see firearms being necessary for individual security, whether it be in the street or in the home. Secondly, following from that first point, there is no link between the rate of crime and private ownership of firearms. Finally, criminals don't care about firearms laws but they can be a nuisance to them. Criminals who need firearms to do their job - e.g. armed robbery - will get them somehow. It's just that in Australia it's a little more difficult for them due to firearms control laws. I think that in the US there is a perceived, if not actual, need for firearms to be in private hands for personal and home security. This leads to the idea that where there is a high rate of gun ownership among private persons that there is a corresponding decrease in street crime against the person, "whoa, wait a minute dude, this could-be victim might be armed! I need to re-think my strategy here!" Also that home invasions by armed offenders would be reduced because the invaders couldn't be sure if the persons in the house were better armed than they. That may be the American context and yes, I've simplified it for the sake of argument. The point I'm making is that using Australian experience and statistics to make a point about the American experience and crime rates is invalid, there are too many variables on each side to make some sort of equivalence.
The nation of Australia is also unique in the sense that it is an isolated island, surrounded on all sides by ocean. There are no thousands of miles of unsecured border territory, serving as a land bridge to what many regard as the most corrupt and crime-ridden nation in the world. It is far more capable of securing its borders against the influx of both weapons and illicit substances, than many other nations in the world.
Correlation does not equal causation Number of guns has increased but not as rapidly as the number of households owning guns http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-chart-12
You mean the thousands of Kilometres of unguarded coastline that faces Indonesia and Asia? The coastline that is a canoe's travel from island to island from Papua New Guinea?
I will keep that in mind the next time foreigners claim that their crime rates decreased due to idiotic gun restrictions. your claim does not correlate with your post. you claim the number of Households with guns increased more rapidly than the number of guns which is contradicted by your graph BTW no one who understands the gun issue really believes that the number of gun owners has decreased. few people-me included-who own guns are willing to tell nameless phone callers if we own guns. As someone who is a competitive shooter, a former LEO, and counsel to gun dealers, everything I see suggests lots of new gun owners - - - Updated - - - NOt quite the same thing as our borders
Incorrect. The number of new guns in entering circulation can be reliably estimated because firearm manufacturers and importers report their sales. The total number of guns in the US cannot be reliably estimated because there is no gun registry, firearms are durable and last many decades, and private sales and imports have not been reported consistently. The number of households with firearms is completely unquantifiable. For 30 years, the number of respondents to firearm related questions has been decreasing - particularly since the Clinton administration passed the 1993 Brady Bill and the 1994 gun ban (expired in 2004, and shown to be ineffective in reducing crime by even the liberal gun ban group Urban Institute). Notice the dip in your chart in the 1990's. The anecdotal evidence is that gun owners stopped responding to gun ownership surveys which biased the survey results. I know many gun owners that either throw such surveys in the trash, or fill them out and lie saying they do not own any firearms.
yes, and birth control and abortion availabiity are WHY crime rates have fallen. When 50 million less trouble making scumbags get born, figuring 100 crimes each (in their lifetime, which is a very conservative number) there's a lot less crime. Many commit a dozen burglaries or robberies daily., or at least, attempt to do so.
Don't know where the original OP of this went, but I'll repeat my response to it..... The paper has to be purchased for $35, so the full paper is not available to me, but the abstract posted in OP post #1 has 2 items which can be checked. First, the paper claims "there were significant decreases in armed robbery and attempted murder relative to sexual assault, with weaker evidence in relation to unarmed robbery". Really? here is the data from the Australia Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports: crime is number of incidents (rate per 100,000 people) ......1995 (pre-ban).................1996 (ban fully implemented).................1997.................1998 Armed Robbery................5,255 (29.1) ................. 6,256 (34.17) ................. 9,054 (48.89) ................. 10,850 (58.0) Unarmed Robbery...........9,303 (51.51)................. 10,116 (55.3)................. 12,251 (66.2)................. 12,951 (69.2) Attempted Murder...........299 (1.66) ...................... 335 (1.83) ...................... 318 (1.72)................. 387 (2.1) Sexual Assault ...........12,962 (71.77) ................. 14,542 (78.62) ................. 14,353 (77.5)................. 14,568 (77.7) Armed robbery & unarmed robbery increased significantly. Attempted murder increased 26% over the 1995/pre-ban rate. Sexual assault increased but slightly. The numbers don't show a decrease at all. Maybe somewhere in that paper the fudging of data is explained, but right now this paper looks like BS. And on to point #2, the paper only look s at the first 2 years - one and two years after the NFA was enacted. Why a study performed on data 18 years old didn't look at many more years than "one and two years after the NFA was enacted" is odd. Maybe they just wanted to avoid the huge crime wave that swept AUS starting in 1996 (the year the ban went into full effect), really took off in year 3, and peaked in the 2001-2003 time frame. Maybe it was just too difficult to "fudge" away that much crime.
The data seems to be coming from multiple sources http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...rica-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/ Plus you do not have to have every survey returned - that is what SAMPLING is about
When gun owners disproportionately opt out of the surveys, then your random and representative sampling goes out the window. And there is no way to compensate for the gun owners opting out because there is no truth source (or anything even close to truth), and gun owners won't co-operate. In your link to an article in TheBlaze, the article is an outside independent editorial that simply discusses an interview with the Director of the General Social Survey (the source of the homeowner data), it does not necessarily agree with the conclusion. Other TheBlaze articles report the issue differently, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...can-homes-really-decreased-this-dramatically/
If I am called for a survey, I'll tell them how I sold all of my guns to Gary. Its a pity that he lost them in a freak boating accident.
Why? Was there an overall increase in crime? If people simply shift from guns to other things to commit crimes why does it matter? You're free to work on murders with cricket bats now. The whole concept that an armed society reduces crime is logical prima facie but falls apart when you study it. You're going to tell me that shootings will be reduced when most members of an argumentative, violent, dangerous and downright ornery a group as humans carry death in their pockets. I don't buy it and don't really care how many cooked numbers you have, it doesn't make sense.
What "massive" benefits are those? OK, humanity is different in Australia than in the USA, despite the fact that we have about the same language and culture So now we have to cower in our homes behind our arsenals because of the ravening hordes of barbarians from Mexico....OOKKayy I'm not against a highly restricted type of gun ownership but WHY do so many conservatives think they won't be able to hunt, target shoot or feel safer in their homes unless every criminal and crazy is armed to the teeth as well? I would think a certain amount of exclusivity would appeal to them
Point to any specific piece of legislation that has been proven to reliably restrict access to firearms by criminal parties, and cannot be easily thwarted.
It appears harassing lawful gun owners is the benefit most of them crave but will not publicly admit as supporting
