Australia whats up with this?

Guess what?

I just clicked the first link - NO PROBLEMS. Went right to the page listing all the crime reports from 1993 to 2012. Clicked on the year, clicked on download, clicked on the pdf symbol, VOILA! there it was.

One page, links to all the reports. Mod Edit ~ Stop the innuendo

 

You attempt to compare all reported crime in Australia (including threats) to actual criminal convictions in the US.
And then you claim that it's not honest to focus predominantly on crimes that are actually proven to be closely correlated with firearm use...

That position is simply too stupid for words.

I'm sorry, did you just say that - despite their population growing by over 20%, their armed robberies have been below the "pre-ban" level for the last 5 years?

 

It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts

 

You have not answered why you are focussing on 12 year old data (and I am ignoring posts that may be deleted by moderator action)

 

......too complicated and requires effort. And the Good Lord gave them the ability to learn to read and it will all be wasted. Good debate on your part!

 

Over the course of these many posts regarding AUS and its gun ban failure, I have presented the data from 1992 through 2010 since that was the data available when I downloaded the database in late 2012.

If you had actually read what I have presented, or looked at the AUS data, the crime wave began in 1996, peaked in 2001-2002, and then began a downward trend although most crime is still significantly above the pre-ban levels.

Its quite clear, the AUS gun control has been a failure.

 

if you would allow me....? They don't care about stats, only the issue of guns. Violent home invasions should be met with a fisticuffs match, muggings should be resolved through a game of mumbly-peg, and rapes should be greeted with engaging and meaningful conversations. That's how they roll........in the event that those actions are worthless, they strongly suggest that you beg................

 

Even if you were correct that there was an increase in total crime in Aus for 6 years, you fail to make a valid point because:
1) you fail to establish correlation, and
2) you fail to explain the drop in per capita crime over the last decade.

In short, you fail.

 

If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation's security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.
View attachment 25989

 

You have the link to the AUS crime reports and data tables. Go read the data for yourself. The data speaks for itself, loud and clear. The AUS gun ban has been a failure.

 

Compared to what?!
Our rates are way higher!

 

Compare Australia pre-ban to Australia post-ban. Look what happened after the gun bans went into effect.

The US has higher homicide & robbery rates. For 2012 AUS homicide is 2.8 per 100,000 people, for the US its 4.7. Not a big difference. I'm sure you will want to make it look like a huge difference by claiming its 68% higher than AUS, but 68% of a small number is still a small number.

And the US rate has gone steadily from 9.5 in 1993 to 4.7 in 2012, as guns are becoming more prevalent and gun laws relaxed. AUS went from 3.48 in 1993, to 2.8 in 2012 (plus a crime bubble from 1996-2004 peaking at 4.2 in 2001) with gun bans. The US has done quite well, AUS has at best held steady.

Throw in other crimes, and its clear AUS has failed. Crime in the US has steadily trended down since 1993, crime in AUS went way up particularly the violent crimes. In the US, rape went from 41 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 26.9 in 2012.

Sexual assault in AUS went from 71.1 in 1993, it increased to 95.3, in 2012 it was 80.0. AUS took away the guns and women became even bigger victims.

The AUS data is clear. Take away the guns and you just make the people victims.

 

Your assumption is that all crimes are somehow related to firearms. Whereas I concur this may be true when discussing homicide and robbery, I have yet to see any evidence that this applies to all crime.

You also fail to recognize (as has been proven in this thread) that "violent crime" is defined differently in the two countries, with Australians including a far greater range of acts and behaviors than we do in the US.

Fail much?

 

Interesting, I've heard this before, but find it difficult to imagine. Would you elaborate on this "far greater range of acts?"

Violent crime in the US includes Aggravated assault, assault and simple assault, Rape, murder, sexual assault and robbery, which covers everything I can think of, including just making someone feel uncomfortable.

 

Wake up and think. Recognizing your inability to get past crime labels to the actual definitions, in the above I compared the TRENDS of the US and AUS, not the exact numbers.

In the US, more guns, relaxed gun laws, and crime drops. Violent crime down >50%.

In AUS they do gun bans, and crime increased. Violent crime up 33%. And as I mentioned, armed robbery increased 50% after the gun bans, and has only recently dropped to the pre-ban level. Way to go banners.

 

So, what you're saying is that - as of today, Australia's crime rates are at the same level as they were several decades ago, despite their population increasing 20%... and that level is far lower than ours has ever been. Right?

 

Aussies define "sexual assault" as "Sexual assault is defined as physical assault of a sexual nature"
http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/vi...20assault.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/vio...e/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/c...w paper.html

As already illustrated, assault (and sexual assault) in Australia both include simple threats, and it's clear that homicide and robbery have plummetted in Australia.

 

Our sexual assault is very much the same, I would even venture as far as to say far more sensitive.

Inappropriate touching, and sim
ple conversation can lead to charges.

Simple threats, both vocal and physical are covered by assault.

We also have hate crime and race issues that can lead to charges.

 

Those are interesting assertions, but they don't seem supported by facts. I'll provide sources.

According to the FBI, from which US crime stats are regularly obtained, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/

Rape, as defined by the FBI is: "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape, regardless of the age of the victim, are included. Statutory offenses (no force used―victim under age of consent) are excluded."
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/offense_definitions.html

That's right, the US statistics on rape don't include statutory rape, or any rape in which force was not used.
As I previously illustrated, in Australia, even talking about rape is a "violent crime" if someone is made to feel uncomfortable and reports it.

Please, tell me again how we are much more sensitive in the US.... ​

As for assault, you might be right... Simple threats, both vocal and physical are covered by assault.... but "assault" is not considered a "violent crime". Only "aggravated assault" is.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/

Aussies, on the other hand, do count assault (including simple threats) as a violent crime.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/c...w paper.html​

Are you starting to get why comparing these statistics is BS? The only ones that are directly comparable are murder and robbery, and we fare far worse than Australians in both.

 

Thank-you yes and here, in an effort to curb phlegm, we have made spitting on someone, especially a cop "aggravated assault"

 

Still trying to disguise bulltwang and "facts"


Of course in that time period we changed a couple of laws including making spitting a serious crime

 

You just verified what I have always stated - when the gun bans went into effect in 1996, crime increased, peaking around 2001, then began to decrease but violent crime is still above the pre-ban level.

If you expand the scale it will be obvious sexual assault went up significantly and remains high.

And if you split robbery into armed robbery and unarmed robbery you will see armed robbery went up 50% after the ban and has only recently dropped below the pre-ban rate.

And since AUS started with a very low homicide rate and your chart is scaled poorly, you cant see that even homicide increased after the ban, peaking in 2001 before dropping.

Less guns did not translate into less crime, only less firearm crime. More policing by the highly embarassed Howard administration (champions of the gun laws) may have resulted in less crime.

 

Oh! Dear! So; we have established that some of this "crime rise" was a change in our laws (we are about to make the king hit murder) and "armed robbery" here incorporates people using syringes and butter knives,

 

yep. knife wounds are so much better.



no thanks. I'd rather get shot