Cost of Gun Reform

You don't want to see reason or logic regarding this issue, so what is the point of me providing you with information you already have. The next time you provide information and data from the ABS to substantiate your theory and claims, you have to expect and accept me and other members will view that information and data as being "misinterpreted" and not credible, as you have done with the information and data we have provided you with form the same source. I'm sorry, but you cannot claim the data from the ABS is correct and accurate when you produce it to prove a point, but then claim other data from the ABS has been "misinterpreted" when we produce it to prove a point. There is a special term for that kind of behaviour.

How was Howard not telling the general public that 80% of deaths caused by guns were suicides and NOT homicides "misinterpreted" by the way?

 

I don't think anyone on this forum is suggesting or advocating that every individual should have access to semi-automatic weapons, but denying the facts that politicians introduced gun legislation based on a premises of misinformation and deceit is a far more dangerous concept in my opinion, than people with automatic weapons.

 

Validated research? We know that any research, article, opinion, blog or anything really that you think supports your anti gun agenda is validated and beyond reproach. But unfortunately there is nothing out there that supports the anti gun lobby's agenda.
Show us the research that supports your latest ridiculous claim that living in a household in Australia where there is a firearm puts you at greater risk of death.
You an also tell us why you are ignoring the findings and statistics of the AIC and ABS. It was you who held up the AIC as a source that could not be argued with and their data, from your own link, clearly shows the gun laws had no affect. You have also held out the ABS as a source that is inarguable.

 

I think the biggest crime was politicians and anti-gun lobby groups making erroneous claims that by reducing gun ownership crime would be reduced - it simply hasn't.

 

Oh! There is plenty of "research" out there that on the surface of it supports pro-gun bull but most of it has more holes than a 50 year old mozzie net

And I am NOT "ignoring the findings" of the AIC and the ABS - in fact I support them - what is under contention is the misinterpretation such as "gun deaths trending down since 1969"

YOUR contention as per post 19 of this thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=379107&page=2&p=1064383676#post1064383676

 

So how would you 'interpret' the AIC graph in my link entitled 'Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915 - 2003'?
How would you 'interpret' the graph entitled 'Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 - 2006-07'?

Both show a clear downward trend starting long before the gun laws. I am not interpreting anything, just stating the facts as reported by the AIC. Total homicides in Australia have been steadily declining since 1969, that is a simple fact that is beyond 'imterpretation'. The facts won't change just because you don't like them.
The ABS link states that only 7.7% of all suicides involve a firearm. What is there to interpret about that?

 

Correct data and information to make appropriate decisions, is the whole point about having a rational debate about guns, and gun control within a community. We first have to recognise and understand where the data and information is coming from, and how the data is collected, and if the data and information collected in credible to support the view being used.

We would all have to agree that the data collected by the ABS is not 100% accurate. The only accurate data collected by the ABS would come from "some" Government departments like: hospitals and schools, who have to keep legal and accurate records, but even this data, would not be 100% correct or accurate. Therefore, the only data collect by the ABS, and relied on by them to form their statistics, is information gathered by "Census" done every 5- 10 years. We ask ourselves, "how" many people filling in those "census" forms accurately answer the all the question truthfully?

Data and information collected by other "so-called" independent organisation can always be open to manipulation, depending on what agenda they are trying to put forward.

Considering the information and data offered by the ABS and other organisation to support their statistics is "suspect" and not 100% accurate, we would logicaly have to conclude that all the statistics combined to form the data and information, is not representing the correct overview of the issue.

This is the problem, we are arguing about flawed and suspect data and information produced by organisations with a hidden agenda, or department who rely on citizens to be 100% completely honest in answering "census" questions, rather than looking at the factual data coming from hospitals, schools, and our own community.

My sister has worked in aged care facilities and hospitals as an RN for over 15 years, and we have had many discussions about gun control. She keeps reminding me that during her 15 + year career in country & metropolitan hospitals; 90% of victims admitted to hospital for gun related injuries, were individual attempting suicide or who had committed suicide. She also pointed me in the direction that politicians and anti-gun lobby groups enforced their edict on the general public, by falsely proclaiming that by reducing gun access to the average person, the crime rate would fall - but it hasn't.

I can only speak for myself, but when someone deliberately lies to me and deceives me about an important issue, I immediately think that person has an ulterior motive or agenda. We all know that in the majority of cases politicians and private organisations have ulterior motives and agendas that are not always in the public's best interests.

No one is suggesting that every individual should be allowed access to automatic weapons, but is there a reason why we cannot have an honest discussion without all the bloody lies and deceit for a change.

We discuss on this forum about politicians being deceitful and being lies, and yet we are calling the "kettle black" by doing very same thing as they are, by taking rigid biased position that don't necessarily reflect the truth.

 

Your have misrepresented your graph. It shows firearm deaths - both suicide and homicide - decreasing since 1986 (it shows deaths, not rate, but the report provides rate and that decreased as well).


I read the AIC report, it plays fast and loose with the data.

For example, throughout the report it averages firearm related deaths from 1915 to 1994 and then claims firearm related deaths increased over that period, that is incredibly misleading - page 5 of the report is typical:

"The total number of homicides increased by an average of 1.6 per cent each year during the period from 1915 to 1994."​

Just from the graph you posted its clear there are 3 trends - a steady level until about 1946, then an increase until about 1986, then a decrease for the rest of the period graphed (1996).

So to answer your question, Yes, I will argue with the AIC. Averaging data from 1915 though 1996 is clearly dishonest and intended to imply firearm deaths were always increasing.

Remember this AIC report was published in 1996 at a time when the AUS govt had a strong interest in justifying the gun ban legislation. The ABS data tables are the fundamental source, the reports have been written through a govt filter and must be taken with skepticism.

BTW, the same report shows accidental deaths by firearm were few and decreasing since 1955.

And the report shows mass killings to also be rare in AUS since 1987.

 

What AIC data does, is tried to dress a cat up to look like a duck, but an intelligent person would know its really a cat.

Only someone with a rigid biased view "wanting" to see a duck would call a cat dressed up as a duck - a duck.

 

Gee - your definition of a "downward trend since 1969" must be different from mine



In fact I think it is probably unique

 

Bb,
he just doesn't want to know, as with so many other things.......
Regards

 

Actually Sweetie I am not posting for him but for others who read my replies. See it is not about who can lie the most but about who keeps calm and quietly shows the research

 

So you tell us what the trend line in your graph is doing from around the mid 1960's to 2003.

 

Your own eyes can see that the curvature of the line in the graph starting from around 1971 DOES indicate a decline. The graph itself indicates that between 1987 and 1995 (before gun control legislation) there was a decline, and after the introduction of gun control in 1996 there was in INCREASE.

 

Blind Freddy can see it for God's sake!!

 

Let me see - fluctuating????

I see dead stats (sorry could NOT resist!)

 

Why can't you just admit what is before your own eyes? The question was, "So you tell us what the trend line in your graph is doing from around the mid 1960's to 2003". THE TREND IS DOWN FROM THE MID SIXTIES. THE TREND IS NOT FLUCTUATING. You are the one who has been so insistent on ignoring fluctuations in data and saying we should look at trends. Now because the trend goes against your beliefs you want to ignore it and start talking about fluctuations. There is a word for people who do this.

 

I have no intentions of trying to convince someone that the truth exists, when its right before their own eyes. Obviously they have another agenda, and that agenda is not to discuss and debate the truth.

If Bowerbird wants to quibble with semantics, and wants to believe a cat dressed up as a duck, is a duck, then that is their prerogative.

End of discussion for me. LOL

 

lets try this graph

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2011/2_profiles.html

 

This is interesting
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291281/

 

Thank you. As I suggested in my post 208, its difficult the make an informed decision based on flawed information and data from the AIC and ABS. The misinformation and data used by the government and anti-gun lobby groups to enact the gun legislation of 1996, was based on a false and misleading premises.

I am not arguing about gun reforms, but about the inaccurate and false data and information that led to the new legislation. To me, politicians and small lobby groups being able to enact legislation based on lies and deceit is more dangerous than the issues they are trying to legislate against - guns in this instance.

 

We still have guns, they aren't banned, just registered.

The number of registered guns in Australia is reported to be 2012: 2,750,0005

In Australia, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 188
2010: 234
2009: 228
2008: 234
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
we do see a decline between 1992 and 1997, previous to 1992 it was nearly always over 600, I did say nearly always, there were two years at 595 and 549. After 1992 it hovered around 500, then in 1997 : 400+, 1998 to 2001: 300+, 2002 to 2010: 200+, 2011: 188

Looks like it's decreasing to me, maybe AM should get blind freddy to read it to him!

 

What? and you called yourself a scientist! They pick two years where there is a drop in firearm homicides of 1% between them and then compare one of those years with the abnormaly high peak year. They don not mention total homicides. You know what you you have posted? Something that is worse than meaningless, it is missrepresentative, missleading, cherry picked data clearly designed to support an anti gun agenda.

 

Well I roughly calculated that around 2000 people are alive due to the gun laws, maybe more because as our rate of deaths by guns is falling, the population is increasing, so in reality the deaths should be increasing which makes it more pronounced. BTW I am a shooter, I have 3 guns, and I am a member of one of those ant-unregistered gun lobby groups so thanks for the insult.