Conceal carry saved lives

[Katzndogz]

Katz:

Total Firearm-Related Deaths:

USA: 10.27

Australia: 2.94

The law abiding people haven't offed enough criminals yet.

What's really happening in Australia?

In light of some recent press reports, I've done some research that you'll probably find valuable.

The anti-gun community has questioned the NRA's statements that Australia's crime rates have risen due to their recent gun bans. The NRA reported some dramatic findings, including that the armed robbery rate rose 44% within 12 months of the ban. Anti-gunners are now saying that the NRA is wrong because Australia's murder rate is down. Who is right? I'll give you the details and sources here.

In simplest terms, the NRA is correct (albeit a few minor discrepancies). To confuse matters, the anti-gunners are also technically correct, but they're clearly distorting the big picture.

Both sides are quoting the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Fortunately, ABS's web site posts all of these key statistics. (Their home page can be found at Australian Bureau of Statistics and the statistics in question can be found at Error 404 +-+A+Statistical+Profile/2C2A842ACC44F31DCA2567220072E990/ (Error 404) ).

The gun ban occurred in 1996. So we're most concerned with what happened to crime rates in the following 12 months. The NRA claimed the following statistics (from 1996 to 1997):

Armed-robberies rose 44%
Assaults rose 8.6%
Homicides rose 3.2%

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) at the above web addresses, the following statistics are shown (from 1996 to 1997):

Armed robberies rose 44.7% (6,256 to 9,054).
Assaults rose 9.1% (114,156 to 124,500).
Murders rose 2.9% (312 to 321).

This would lead us to believe that the NRA slightly underestimated the rise in armed robberies and assaults and slightly overestimated the rise in the murder rate. These small discrepancies might be accounted for in the fact that crime statistics are often changed by small amounts later in the year as more data becomes available. Whatever the reason, the NRA's statistics are well in line with the latest data available.

The anti-gunners insist that murders are down. According to the ABS, they're correct - but only if you look at the data from the next year. There were 321 murders in 1997 and 284 in 1998 - an 11.5% decrease. The NRA is correct that the murder rate increased from 1996 to 1997 and the anti-gunners are correct that it fell from 1997 to 1998.

 

[Saigon]

Katz -

Crime may be rising in Australia, but that hardly addresses the issue of the US's staggeringly high homocide rate, does it?

Gusn are not banned in Australia, btw.

It's funny, I've posted stats on various aspects of US gun homocide rates on a half-dozen threads now, and I have yet to see any poster address them.

I wonder what that means.

 

[Katzndogz]

Katz -

Crime may be rising in Australia, but that hardly addresses the issue of the US's staggeringly high homocide rate, does it?

Gusn are not banned in Australia, btw.

It's funny, I've posted stats on various aspects of US gun homocide rates on a half-dozen threads now, and I have yet to see any poster address them.

I wonder what that means.

Your suggestions are downright silly, that's what it means. They are too silly to deserve a response.

Venezuela has a gun ban.
BBC News - Venezuela bans private gun ownership

Caracas in the most violent city in Latin America.
Caracas: The most dangerous city in Latin America - or is it? - CSMonitor.com

In America you cannot have any kind of discussion about the staggeringly high homicide rate without mentioning the staggeringly high criminal conduct by black Americans. That's followed by the staggeringly high criminal conduct by hispanic Americans.

Put a few Crip, Blood, MS-13, Latin Kings gangs in Australia and see if the homicide rate goes up or down.

 

[Saigon]

Katz -

Wonderful stuff - you see, when you start comparing the US with Venezuela I KNOW you are trolling!!

I absolutely love watching people flounder about this topic - on the last thread we had posters lining up to insist that one can not logically compare the US with the UK, Canada, Germany or France - but Venezuela or Mexico are fine!!!

 

[Katzndogz]

Katz -

Wonderful stuff - you see, when you start comparing the US with Venezuela I KNOW you are trolling!!

Both have liberal leaders. Both have financial catastrophe. Both have high crime rates. The major difference is, the Venezuelan people are showing signs of being done with liberalism to the point of tossing Chavez out on his ass.

You did not address the substance, which is FAR more indicative of the fact that your opposition is on esoteric and ideological grounds rather than facts.

 

[Saigon]

Ah, so Chavez is a LIBERAL, is he? Well, that explains everything!!

Look, I have no problem at all with people trolling, but I think I'll try and stick to the posters who are at least serious about the topic.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ah, so Chavez is a LIBERAL, is he? Well, that explains everything!!

Look, I have no problem at all with people trolling, but I think I'll try and stick to the posters who are at least serious about the topic.

Chavez ISN'T a leftist!!!!

If you cannot seriously discuss a topic, then it is best you stick to posters who do not pose a challenge to you. It's obvious that you have no rebuttal, all you have is the stock liberal personal commentary. I shall not engage you further no matter how cross-eyed you are.

 

[Saigon]

Perhaps we can get back to the topic now.

First let's look at the total number of gun-related murders in some countries:

US: 9,649

Canada: 144

Australia: 59

UK: 14

Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

What does this tell us, do you think?

 

[Missourian]

Perhaps we can get back to the topic now.

First let's look at the total number of gun-related murders in some countries:

US: 9,649

Canada: 144

Australia: 59

UK: 14

Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

What does this tell us, do you think?

Not much.

Here is the $64,000 question...

Did the 1997 Australian gun buyback reduce the homicide rate in Australia?

THE ANSWER IS NOT AT ALL.

Buyback has no effect on murder rate


Matthew Moore
October 24, 2006



HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

Buyback has no effect on murder rate - National - smh.com.au
​

 

[Missourian]

Katz:

Total Firearm-Related Deaths:

USA: 10.27

Australia: 2.94

Chris likes to play this game too.

Let's have a look at the comparison.

Australia gun buyback was in 1997.

Here is a look at their homicide rate.
​

Now, let's take a look at the United States.

​

Here is the link...The State of the USA | FBI Report: Violent Crime Down for 2009​

Uncheck everything except "Murder" and you'll see the murder rate here has dropped more and sustained the reduction better than Australia.

And we didn't institute gun control, in fact, 47 of 50 states have INCREASED FIREARM FREEDOM.

What does this tell us about our comparison?

Again, not much.

Comparing two cultures tells us very little, because it is apples compared to oranges.

The TRUE comparison is between post ban Australia and pre ban Australia...and what that clearly indicates is that the effect of the buyback was negligible, as documented in my prior post.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Katz -

Crime may be rising in Australia, but that hardly addresses the issue of the US's staggeringly high homocide rate, does it?

Gusn are not banned in Australia, btw.

It's funny, I've posted stats on various aspects of US gun homocide rates on a half-dozen threads now, and I have yet to see any poster address them.

I wonder what that means.

"...but that hardly addresses the issue of the US's staggeringly high homocide rate, does it?"

From your own source: (List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004.

United States of America CJ National police Rate 8.1 7.3 6.7 6.2 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.0

Well below the global rate isn't "staggeringly high" to most people.

 

[xsited1]

xisted -

And of course there is a reason why someone wanting to reduce the homocide rate would have to be young and stupid, right?

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The implication is that people in America do not want to reduce the homicide rate. That's just stupid.

Honestly - if you can not answer sensibly, why not admit that she has a point?

I can't answer sensibly? What are you talking about? What's there to answer? Her point is that America doesn't want to lower the homicide rate. That is undeserving of a response. Of course people in America want to lower the homicide rate. Seriously, what have you people been smoking?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

xisted -

And of course there is a reason why someone wanting to reduce the homocide rate would have to be young and stupid, right?

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The implication is that people in America do not want to reduce the homicide rate. That's just stupid.

Honestly - if you can not answer sensibly, why not admit that she has a point?

I can't answer sensibly? What are you talking about? What's there to answer? Her point is that America doesn't want to lower the homicide rate. That is undeserving of a response. Of course people in America want to lower the homicide rate. Seriously, what have you people been smoking?

The best way to lower the homicide rate is for every America to be armed.

 

[CMike]

How come Findland has such a extremely high suicide rate? Is it because they have read Saug

 

[xsited1]

xisted -

And of course there is a reason why someone wanting to reduce the homocide rate would have to be young and stupid, right?

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The implication is that people in America do not want to reduce the homicide rate. That's just stupid.

Honestly - if you can not answer sensibly, why not admit that she has a point?

I can't answer sensibly? What are you talking about? What's there to answer? Her point is that America doesn't want to lower the homicide rate. That is undeserving of a response. Of course people in America want to lower the homicide rate. Seriously, what have you people been smoking?

The best way to lower the homicide rate is for every America to be armed.

Right you are! Remember when Wayne LaPierre of the NRA in 2000 said President Bill Clinton tolerated a certain amount of violence and killing to strengthen the case for gun control and to score points for his party? He was exactly right and politicians continue to tolerate it to this day. That's just sick.

 

[MuadDib]

Katz -

Crime may be rising in Australia, but that hardly addresses the issue of the US's staggeringly high homocide rate, does it?

Gusn are not banned in Australia, btw.

It's funny, I've posted stats on various aspects of US gun homocide rates on a half-dozen threads now, and I have yet to see any poster address them.

I wonder what that means.

I've already posted that the root of the problem is not the availabilty of guns, but the failed WoD and the major drug producing nations sitting on the US' southern border, and you have yet to address that.

 

[Saigon]

MuadDib -

Because I doubt you entirely believe it yourself.

Drugs are definitely a big part of the problem - but countries like the UK, Germany and France have major drug issues as well - but still around 80% less homocides per capita than the US does.

Drug may be the root cause in Mexico and Colombia, but then no sane person is going to compare homocide rates in the US with Mexico anyway.

 

[Noomi]

xisted -

And of course there is a reason why someone wanting to reduce the homocide rate would have to be young and stupid, right?

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The implication is that people in America do not want to reduce the homicide rate. That's just stupid.

Honestly - if you can not answer sensibly, why not admit that she has a point?

I can't answer sensibly? What are you talking about? What's there to answer? Her point is that America doesn't want to lower the homicide rate. That is undeserving of a response. Of course people in America want to lower the homicide rate. Seriously, what have you people been smoking?

The best way to lower the homicide rate is for every America to be armed.

Excellent idea. Do that, and in ten years, you would have killed yourselves.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The implication is that people in America do not want to reduce the homicide rate. That's just stupid.



I can't answer sensibly? What are you talking about? What's there to answer? Her point is that America doesn't want to lower the homicide rate. That is undeserving of a response. Of course people in America want to lower the homicide rate. Seriously, what have you people been smoking?

The best way to lower the homicide rate is for every America to be armed.

Excellent idea. Do that, and in ten years, you would have killed yourselves.

Why are Australians style dying from gun shot wounds? After all you have gun bans.

 

[MuadDib]

MuadDib -

Because I doubt you entirely believe it yourself.

Drugs are definitely a big part of the problem - but countries like the UK, Germany and France have major drug issues as well - but still around 80% less homocides per capita than the US does.

Drug may be the root cause in Mexico and Colombia, but then no sane person is going to compare homocide rates in the US with Mexico anyway.

No doubt they do have drug problems, but the UK, Germany, France, and Australia don't have Mexico on their southern border.