The data is clear that the US violent crime rate has decreased more than 50% since 1992, and that the Australian violent crime rate has increased substantially since they implemented the gun ban. Data from the Australia Bureau of Statistics and the FBI UCR has been presented previously to prove these claims. A comparison of violent crime between AUS, USA, Canada, and the UK, prepared by the Australia Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/cfi-pdf/cfi115.pdf Note the US violent crime rate is significantly lower than Canada, UK, and AUS. Also note the Australian data starts with 1995 despite the fact that pre-1995 data is readily available from the Australia Bureau of Statistics. The AUS gun ban went into full effect in 1996, also the year a crime bubble hit Australia . Including pre-1995 data would show the decreasing trend in violent crime before the gun ban, such a visual would be highly embarrassing to the AUS government and the gun banners. Also note the factsheet tries to obfuscate by claiming "Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries." No proof, just a wish that mysterious unknown "incremental" changes "may" have resulted in the uncomfortable (for gun banners, and the AUS government is run by banners) outcome of the graph. No talk about gun control, demographics, poverty, drugs, changes in law enforcement, or any of the items that typically impact crime rates - just a bleat that its all due to "recording procedures".
So, in short, you're taking a brief fact-sheet about difficulties comparing crime statistics from different jurisdictions and attacking it for pointing out the (very real) difficulties in comparing statistics from in different jurisdictions and not referring to a whole list of things it was obviously never intended to. Then you refer to statistics that aren't even included on the chart. I don't believe gun controls have a significant impact on general crime rates (either way) but you're making a flawed excuse for an argument and dismissing facts you find inconvenient.
1) The report is 9 years old and the data is 2 years older than that 2) Cherry picking - it changes the implications and impressions given by that graph if the first opening paragraph of that report is included with the graph http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/cfi-pdf/cfi115.pdf I have gone over this multiple times - it is almost impossible to compare crime statistics between countries \
Perhaps the Bowerbird has not replied because a) she has a life b) she was actually doing something else but most importantly c) SHE LIVES IN A DIFFERENT TIME ZONE!!
The fact the report is from 2006 is irrelevant, its still valid. The fact remains that your favourite group - the AIC - did compare violent crime between the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia. They put on a disclaimer - a disclaimer with no fact to back it up - but they still compared the rates. And significant changes in reporting result in step functions in crime rates, there are no step functions in the graph. When small incremental changes are applied, in teh report the older data is typically updated to reflect the change as best as possible. And look at the UK graph, a major change in reporting is implemented by police agencies within 1-2 years, the UK graph shows a continuous increase for 6 years. That's not a change in reporting. Fact it, violent crime rates are compared, the USA has the lowest rate, more guns means less crime. Your AIC even admits it. The data is clear.
The US locks up 5 times more people per capita than either the Australia or UK The US lost 126 police officers killed in the line of duty last year 50 of whom were shot which is far more than the rest of the developed world combined. The US has by far the highest per capita murder rates in the developed world three quarters of which are comitted using a firearm. http://internationalcomparisons.org/intl_comp_files/sheet016.htm So much for the US being a safer country then
As an Australian gun owner and admitted radical in favor of gun freedoms, these statistics are irrelevant to me. They don't affect my position.
As you said yourself, these statistics are irrelevant to "Australian gun banners" because the statistics for Australia don't cover the period prior to their change in gun restrictions. Anyway, looking at generic national crime statistics without any other context (such as the one the fact-sheet actually referred to) doesn't really help in that argument. You'd need a much more detailed assessment of the situation to come to any honest conclusions. Few people on either extreme of this debate even try to do that (largely because boring old facts rarely give the simplistic answers you all want).
Actually that is not true. In addition to numerous studies, I have over the past 1.5 years posted extensive data from the Australia Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports and crime database from 1992 through 2013, and from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, showing 2 things: 1 - that AUS suffered a massive crime wave when the gun bans were implemented in 1996, and that previously declining crime trends became increasing trends 2 - that US violent crime was lower than AUS, Canada, and the UK; and only in homicide was the US higher (and that only about 3 per 100,000 higher). I put this chart up for a specific reason - the AUS gun banners on the forum always claim violent crime cannot be compared across nations, and that the Australia Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports were not accurate and only the AUS Criminology Institute was acceptable. The AIC chart puts yet another nail in the gun banner coffin. The issue on changes in reporting have been addressed earlier in this thread.
I have done research into this myself and anyone who takes the time to do the same can easily find this information. The US certainly does have a lower rate of assaults, burglaries and robberies than most western nations. Western nations where guns are banned or are not easily owned and accessible by the general public have far more of those crimes. Boy, that takes a genius to figure out why, doesn't it?
First, there were only 48 felonious deaths in 2012, those are deaths caused by the "bad guy". They were killed while apprehending or chasing or handling a criminal but not all were shot. The rest of the deaths were due to falls, traffic accidents, etc. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted Despite the PR, being a cop is quite safe, it doesn't even make the list of top 20 most dangerous occupations. Comparing homicides as a percent is misleading and a typical gun banner ploy. The US has a homicide rate of 4.6 per 100,000, Australia is at 1.9 (AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Report). But the total violent crime rate (homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, sexual assault) for the US is 429, AUS is 960. So the US has 2.7 more homicides, but AUS has 531 more robberies, assaults with serious bodily injury, and sexual assaults. AUS is much more violent than the US.
There is no way to compare such statistics given different methodologies used in the recording of such crimes. You are trying to compare apples with oranges in the hope of skewing the data in your favour. Perhaps the best direct indicator is the relative incarceration rates per 100,000. Australia = 119 US = 730 Nuff said
You are mixing the causes for reducing crime with the crime rates. The fact that the USA has a lower crime rate is different from why the USA has a lower violent crime rate. Crime is multifaceted. Guns, poverty, gangs, drugs, job opportunity, family structure, all play a role. Incarceration rates do have something to do with reduced crime. There are career criminals, when they are locked up then crime does decrease. But the high incarceration rate in the US reflects the "war on drugs" in which many nonviolent people (and many would say these people committed victimless crimes) are locked up. There are also numerous studies that show criminals avoid people with firearms. A study by MIT of a case in which a Tennessee newspaper published a list of gun owners by zipcode showed following the publication crime in high gun areas decreased, crime in low gun areas increased. In the USA, crime is very highly correlated with city size, the larger the city the higher the crime rate. National crime statistics in the US are driven by the biggest cities. Outside of the big cities, its very safe. In my area, our regional crime statistics are far lower than the US national statistics, homicide is also lower than Australia's homicide rate. And in my region, guns are everywhere, about 25% of adults have concealed carry permits.
Because all the real data runs counter to the gun banner claim that guns are the source of crime and evil.
In Australia if I say to someone, "You wanna fight me, (*)(*)(*)(*)?" that's counted as a violent crime. In the US I'd actually have to hit them.
That's just messed up. In the U.S. we are raised with this.... sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me.
True, but sometimes they do sting just a little bit. Prior to 2008 I had never been accused of racism. But back then I was a Hillary Clinton supporter and over the course of months of defending her as a candidate against increasingly, rabidly fanatical Obama supporters I got called "Racist!" countless times. I confess that at first the charge hurt just a bit, but eventually I grew callouses and now I laugh at the silly buggers. But in truth a great many of our leftists WANT to send the United States down the route of fining or jailing anyone who speaks out in a manner failing to fit into the leftist Politically Correct standard. We could sooooooooooooo easily go the route of Australia in that regard.
Ha RJ, that reminds me of a quote by Conan the Barbarian in one of Howard's novels when he was introduced to city life. He quickly observed: "Civilized men are more impolite than barbarians, because they know they can be discourteous without having their skulls split,...as a general thing....."
You are right of course and the thought struck me right after I posted. That is why all political parties must support our Constitution especially when it comes to free speech. We should be able to speak our minds because that is the best way to change them.
They've banned semi-autos and full-autos. Very few people use them for self defense. The problem is that they've outlawed carry, and made self defense so onerous as to be impossible.