Australia whats up with this?

Wrong. In fact, at this point Mod Edit ~ Rule 2

Crime rates per 100,000 people have increased dramatically starting in 1996, the year the gun laws went into effect.

I have presented the numbers from the AUS crime reports to you multiple times, with links. Stop lying.

 

And I presented links in this thread illustrating that crime increase is largely in line with population growth... even if you could illustrate that burglary and other similar crimes had anything to do with the availability (or lack thereof) of guns.

Now, since you avoided my question, please illustrate that their system is worse than one that allows this:
[video=youtube_share;D2Q31z-zChY]http://youtu.be/D2Q31z-zChY[/video]

 

No it wasn't - trust an Aussie that was NOT the point. The point was to try and prevent another "Port Arthur Massacre" and that we have done

Total crime has not really increased much even with the population increase but beware of statistics

http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi2/tandi359.pdf

 

Thats really the bottom of the barrel for gun banners. When the data doesn't go your way, try to discredit the data. We are seeing that a lot in the US now that the FBI and CDC data is being publicized and its going very badly for the banners. Given time to actually think, Americans seem to be able to think clearly and see through the emotional BS of the banners.

I do know that after the bans went into effect and crime jumped, including murder, it was embarrassing to the banner AUS PM John Howard and the govt started looking into the reporting process and did standardize the reporting. If you look in the AUS crime reports, you will see where reports corrected (where they could) older reports to better reflect the standardized reporting. None of the changes I have seen were very large since it was just the smaller (in population) areas that had some non-standard aspects.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you presented newspaper articles. I presented crime reports from the FBI and the AUS Bureau of Statistics. Direct sources beat propaganda.

 

Not discrediting it - discussing the limitations of

There is a difference you know I like being precise unlike others who when asked to validate what they are claiming only link to vague datasets which do not support allegations and then when called on that fall back on conspiracy theory

 

Please illustrate how the comparative statistics I provided in posts 315 and 382 were newspaper articles. Fail much?

Even where I did site articles, those articles (eg: https://theconversation.com/faking-...-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678, from post 329) are little more than a list of statistics with references that are at least as credible as those you provided.(in many cases, the same sources).

I understand your eagerness to disregard anything I say without consideration... After all, you have no responses to my challenge of your preconceived notions and might actually have to think.

 

You are stating opinion as fact, and claiming a cause and effect relationship that cannot be shown to be real.

I could yell at the cloud, and if it does not rain, then I can say I prevented a flood.

For a person who likes to claim all the research and citations, you have yet a most careless way with facts.

Only when its about others, not about yourself?

 

My responses are all over this forum. You can complain forever, it does not change the fact that I have repeatedly debunked your position. You have presented the same ideas several times, each time coming up with populist media articles as "proof", and each time they have been soundly trounced with the FBI and AUS crime reports. At this stage, its safe to conclude you are impervious to facts. Maybe if you stop using newspapers and go read the actual crime reports you might recognize the error in your position, but its clear you are not logical in any sense of the word.

 

Once again, please illustrate where you "debunked" the following, how the sources provided were "populist media", and where you believe they were "trounced".
[Insert]

 

Debunking? Try Epic Fail

you have not validated your position with specific statistics but instead given general links and stated "it's in there somewhere"

- - - Updated - - -

Okay - show me where I am wrong and that the gun buy back was aimed at reducing all crime

 

you would have thought it would have fallen drastically...but I guess not, eh?

 

From the AUS crime reports, violent crime increased 42% from 1995 to 2001. Thats from 716.7 per 100,000 people to 1015.7 per 100,000 people - and note the rates are already normalized for population changes so you are doubly trounced.

Once AGAIN, you cite a source which compares only firearm related homicide and firearm ownership - a calculation specifically tailored to show a political result.

When you do the correct and honest comparison, which is comparing all homicide to firearm ownership you find a very different result. When you correlate firearm ownership and murder for all 174 nations in the UNODC, you get a correlation of -0.34 (Spearman rho) and -0.2264 (Pearson). That means more guns, less murder.

And when you look at all crime, AUS doesn't look so good. The US has lower rape rates, violent crime, aggravated assault. AUS has lower robbery and homicide. In the US the homocide rate is 4.6, compared to 2.0 in AUS. But for those 2.6 fewer homicides, AUS gets 100's more rapes and severely beaten people.

Its very clear you are not objective and are doing everything possible to deny the facts. I understand, the truth sometimes hurts and its painful to admit you are wrong.

 

You of all people know better. Just a few posts back I led you by the nose to the data in the AUS Bureau of Statistics. I have given you the link to the AUS crime reports from 1992 through 2012. Every number I have cited is directly from those reports - all you have to do is open them and read. But even that seems too much for a banner. To you, your ideology is more important than facts. Contrary to your claims, you are willing to accept increased crime and pain than drop your false beliefs.

 

I responded to the below and your reply is completely non responsive.

I was not talking about anything other than your ambiguous and possibly unsupportable statement above.


I was quite clear the first time, but here it is again.

You made this statement..

This is factual if your meaning only about "to TRY". If you are claiming that preventing it is what "we" have done, that is a statement of facts not in evidence.

Which is it, that the ban is nothing other than trying, or that it succeeded? Both?

I do think I detect a bit of say one thing, do another here. You do make such a point of how others should be able to provide sources. You gave us ambiguity and an opinion.

Prease exprain.

 

A gun hater is a not yet mugged* gun owner-to-be.

*that is the nice version.

 

BULL! What you have been doing - and I have been calling you on it throughout the thread is link to the generic data base claiming that "the truth is in there somewhere" what you have consistently failed to do is link to the ACTUAL FACTUAL data that supports your contention - and the reason for that is that it does not exist

You have NEVER supported your argument correctly - and mate you have also failed miserably because the ABS is only ONE of two sites keeping that data. The other is the AIC.

Oh! And how do I know the data is being made up? Because you keep referencing material that does not exist - at least not in the form you claim it does.

Now you can keep insisting that the evidence is there but I will keep pointing out that it is not - and supplying graphs and evidence to prove it

 

I gave you the link in post 387 (and much earlier, but I'm not going to search out that post)

And when you (the self proclaimed research expert) apparently could not figure out the AUS site, I posted #390 to lead you by the nose to the data:

That web site gives the AUS crime data, the actual data for recent years are downloadable directly into Excel. Older years are only in pdf and you have to use a pdf converter to extract the tables (I guess with the great increase in crime since the gun bans, they are probably too busy to post the older data in spreadsheet form).

As I have stated all along, my source is the AUS crime reports and data. Not some manipulated third person source like you use.

And, at risk of being warned, I will say unequivocably that what you have written above is a straight up lie. And you know it.

 

And once again NO evidence - because that statistic does not appear anywhere in the ABS AND eve IF and I say IF it did (and you have no proof) it would have been cherry picked as it ignores data from the last 12 years!
We do not have an overall statistic for "victims of violent crime" because it is broken into sections i.e.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...12~Main Features~National crime statistics~63

So two points that have made the veracity of that post questionable

And misrepresenting statistics from the ABS is NOT "a calculation specifically tailored to show a political result."

Way to go to further mangle statistics - you are comparing nations with different laws, social stability, cultural bias and income to get THAT result? It might just simply mean - more ability to have the income to BUY guns = more social stability and therefor less crime. Best to look at this claim within one nation yes?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Hmmm - that is because we do not keep statistics for rape - we keep stats for "sexual assault" which can mean anything from Goosing a woman to kissing someone without their permission - Assault includes verbal as well as physical so here is a classic example of comparing apples to oranges

And BTW - you have overestimated the homicide rate in Australia by including attempted murder and manslaughter (which can be a car accident)

Oh! and this is REPORTED crime - not prosecuted

 

Then why not post the link to the specific year? And why keep focussing on 2001 - do you think no crime has been committed since then? And when I click on the links I get THIS message

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...9221166A2ED20B8FCA25722E001A3AE5?opendocument

And crime rates between nations cannot be compared however homicide rates usually can because there is less difference in the laws

 

That's simply moronic.
You are saying that all crime is directly related to the availability of firearms.

Realistically, firearms are most frequently used in such crimes as burglary and homicide (where Aus performs far better than the US).

In relation to your equating "sexual assault" in Aus with rape, I'll try to explain in simple terms why that's dumber than dog (*)(*)(*)(*).

They define "sexual assault" as "Sexual assault is defined as physical assault of a sexual nature"
http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/sexual assault.html

"Physical assault", in turn, is defined as "the direct infliction of force, injury or violence upon a person, including attempts or threats".
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime/assault.html

This means that even saying something inappropriate can get you charged with an assault, and - if the inappropriate language was construed as being of "a sexual nature", then you could be charged with sexual assault.​

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
You cannot claim to have any integrity while comparing "forcible rape" in one country to "threats that are interpreted to have a sexual nature" in another.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, "violent crime" is generally defined as including the offence categories of homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery (both armed and unarmed).
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view paper.html
As already illustrated, assault (and sexual assault) in Australia both include simple threats, and you've already acknowledged that homicide and robbery have plummetted in Australia.

 

In 1995 (the year before the gun ban), from the report 1995 National Crime Statistics (don't panic, here's the report link, just put the little mouse arrow over the pdf symbol and press the left mouse button) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.01995?OpenDocument

Rate per 100,000 people
Murder 1.8 Attempted Murder 1.66 Manslaughter 0.17 Total homicide 3.63

Assault with serious injury 560.72

Armed Robbery 29.1 Unarmed 51.51 Total Robbery 80.61

Sexual Assault 71.77

Total of homicide, robbery, sexual assault, assault with serious injury = 716.73​

Now if you go the 2001 report (don't panic -> http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02001?OpenDocument )

Rate per 100,000 people
Murder 1.6
Attempted Murder 2.4
Manslaughter 0.2
Total homicide 4.2 (thats up 16% from 1995 - aren't these supposed to go down with gun control?)

Assault with serious injury 782.9 (thats 40% up)

Armed Robbery 57.9 (WOW! 5 years after the gun ban ARMED ROBBERY was up 99% !!)
Unarmed 79.1
Total Robbery 137.0 (up 70% from the preban level)

Sexual Assault 90.6 (another one, up 26%)

Total of homicide, robbery, sexual assault, assault with serious injury = 1014.7 (up 42% from 1995)​

And there you have it, straight from the AUS crime reports. 5 years after the gun bans went into effect, homicide was up, robbery was up, even ARMED ROBBERY was up 99%, assault with serious injury, sexual assault. All up.

And if you repeat this process for a later year you will find that AUS is still more violent than pre-ban. Homicide and robbery are down for 2010 (congrats AUS, after 15 years of gun bans armed robbery has finally dropped below the pre-ban rate), but the rest is still bad.

But think of it like this, for each homicide prevented from 1996 through 2009, 750.7 additional people were robbed, beaten severely, and sexually assaulted. Well, maybe that didnt turn out so well after all. I'll bet those 750.7 people (and thats 751 people for every 100,000 people in AUS) think its not such a success.

 

Perhaps you could ask yourself if you have any credibility with people who see you
make unsupportable statements, and then decline to admit it, just ignoring it when you are called on it.

 

Mod Edit ~ Unnecessary comment - click on the link, click on the year you want to look at, then click on the DOWNLOAD tab, then click on the pdf or excel symbol. How many times do I have to go over this?

Go back and read my previous 2 posts - I went through each step for you. I clicked the link and went through the process twice now, no problems.

 

Try following the links yourself before accusing me of anything - the links did NOT get to the data he was claiming they did

This is the link originally provided

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...sues&prodno=4510.0&issue=2011&num=&view=&THIS is the actual link for where the data was accessed
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/F582582E16F1F7DCCA25722500049616/$File/45100_1995.pdf

Bit of a difference eh?

 

No, YOU are the one who focuses onl yon firearm crime and firearm ownership. I focus on the wider spectrum of crime.

And just having done a little exercise in the AUS crime reports, in 2001 after 5 years of the gun bans being in effect, ARMED ROBBERY had doubled!! And in 2009 it finally dropped back below the pre-ban level.

Australia is a great example of the disaster of gun control.