Polls show majority don't want stricter gun control laws.

Maybe, but how much lower is the death rate if guns were substituted with knives and clubs?

And as happened in Australia, when the guns are removed, what do you do with the increased number of beatings, rapes, kidnappings, and robberies? Armed robbery went from 29.1 in 1995 (pre-ban) to 58 in 1998, and only dropped back to the pre-ban level in 2010.

And don't forget that in Australia homicide even increased from 1996 when the gun ban started until 2003 when the rate dropped back below the pre-ban level.

I wonder what you tell all those 1,000's of extra people that were robbed, raped, and killed, just so that Australia could get the guns out of law abiding people hands?

 

Even if that were true - and please I have had enough of suspect statistics cherry picked to support world view bias - then is it not better to be bruised and alive than armed and dead?

And BTW - please prove that rape rose - because I know you cannot as we do not keep statistics on rape separate to the broader term of sexual assault = which can include being kissed by a drunken slob;

During that time period did the laws change - yes they did
Was there an increase of policing in inner city areas - yes there was
Was there a rise in drug crime - again yes there was

So tell me - how were guns supposed to aid or abet the above??

 

The tools available to perform a job impact how willing you will be to perform that job.
If the grocery store is 5 miles away and you have a car, you might not mind making several trips in a day because you forgot to pick something up. If you only have a bike, you're less likely to make that second trip.

Yes, it's possible to get to the grocery store on a bike (or commit a murder with a bat), but it's far less common because your motive has to be much stronger than if tools are readily available that make the task easy.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have demonstrated (through past crimes) that they are likely to re-offend, seems like a no-brainer.

So you're saying the armed robbery rate has been lower for the last 4 years, despite the population growth in Australia since gun control was introduced?

Are you saying that the homicide rate has been below lower for the last 11 years, despite the population growing by 20% since gun control was introduced?

Yeah, we don't have to tell our victims anything... They're dead.

 

Rate is already normalized for population. One day you will figure that out.

I'm saying and the data proves it that Australia implemented its gun ban in 1996 and then suffered a major crime wave which peaked in 2001 and has since subsided. Almost all crime increased during that wave, including homicide. Some major crimes are still above the pre-ban rate.

Australia eventually reduced the homicide rate, but paid for that decrease with 100's raped, beaten, robbed, and terrorized for every single homicide reduction.

So what would you rather have, one person not murdered, or about 400 people not beaten severely, raped, robbed, and terrorized? Australia chose to save the one person. I'm sure those 400 people are happy. Are you going to explain to them why their pain was necessary?

 

Sexual Assault is different to Forcible Rape. One day you will figure that out.

Yup...
Now show causation.

That's pretty vague... Which are you referring to, and what evidence is there of causation?

Please feel free to provide evidence of increased rapes.
You still haven't established any causation and (even if you had), you've already acknowledged that they are now better off than they were before their gun control was established.

Still not seeing any evidence of this... Particularly in light of the fact that any increase

"

"​

 

Go read the AUS crime reports, you have been provided the link before.

Or go look at Bowerbirds plot she keeps putting up, it is scaled poorly but shows the huge increase in violent crime which began in 1996 when the gun ban was implemented.

No, I have not said AUS is better off before the ban - just the opposite. I have written many times that the crime rate went up and some crime rates have subsided. Some such as homicide and robbery are finally below the preban rate, rape and others are still above the preban rates.

And even though some are now below the pre-ban rate, there was the crime wave and its victims. That alone makes AUS worse off. For every one reduction in homicide since 1995, about 400 people were raped, beaten, robbed. Those are the numbers. Go to the AUS Bureau of Statistics (you have the link) and read the reports.

 

Every time I see a "Polls Show" post, I have to shake my online head. Because the majority thinks something, doesn't mean that is the best thing. If everyone thought that homicide was OK, that would not make that true.

 

Are you seriously telling me that this:

"Any act of a sexual nature carried out against a person’s will, through the use of physical force, intimidation or coercion, or the attempt to carry out these acts. Includes all incidents of a sexual nature involving physical contact and carried out without the victim's consent, any forced sexual activity such as rape, attempted rape or indecent assault (such as being touched inside clothing or intentional rubbing of genitals against the victim) and assault with the intent to sexually assault. Also includes any incidents that may have occurred at the victim’s place of work."
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Glossary12011-12​

Is the same as this:

"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ew-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions​

In what universe?

What rape statistics have you provided? What "others" are you talking about that have any relation to firearms?

Once again, you have no idea of the difference between correlation and causation...

 

So your arguement is that when the guns were banned, a lot of men ran around giving little pecks on the cheeck to women who reported it as sexual assault and that drove up the crime rate? LOL

On causation, OK, since you are the expert, you show me there is no causation to the correlation of the gun ban and the crime wave that swept Australia.

 

Is that what I said, or did I say that you cannot equate "sexual assault" in Australia with "rape" in the US?
Your need to misrepresent my point in order to support your position is a strawman fallacy and indicative of the validity of your position.

One does not prove a negative. If I said I was currently riding a unicorn while typing this out on my phone, it would not be your job to disprove my claim.
Onus probandi fallacy much?

 

LOL, I think you need to learn about causation! You absolutely can prove there is or is not causation. Its done all the time.

 

Let's take another look at the post you were responding to...

Where did I say anything about causation?

 

Typical banner response, only present a piece of the puzzle.

To my post that you should show "there is no causation to the correlation of the gun ban and the crime wave that swept Australia" you replied that you cannot prove a negative. As in you cannot prove there is not causation.

Wrong. People show it all the time in studies, particularly when the question is narrowly defined to limit variables.

 

Actually, I have repeatedly stated that bans are stupid, so feel free to stop misrepresenting. It does nothing to lend your position any credibility.

What a crock. You made a claim without support and then expect me to provide evidence that your assertion was incorrect. That's a textbook Onus probandi fallacy. At no point did I say that one cannot prove a negative, but the burden of proof is on the person making the initial positive claim - in this case, that there is causation as opposed to correlation.

 

A) there was no crime wave
b) there was no gun ban in Australia
c) there was never any claim anywhere that guns would somehow reduce overall crime - that is an unsubstantiated American myth

So what part of your post is not a fail???

 

There was a crime wave, and the chart you keep putting up proves it. Search the internet for AUS newspaper stories between 1996-1998. Seems everyone knows of the crime wave except you.

"Robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 per cent over the previous financial year." South Australian Police Annual Report tabled in State Parliament 27 October 1998

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures)" ‘Gun crime soars’, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 October 1998

"John, it's not working, it's not working - it's as people always suspected that the good people would obey the rules and the bad guys would just continue on as always."
Radio Station 4BC Queensland Queensland Police Association - Merv Bainbridge on gun related crime and the gun buyback. 21/07/2000



Again, Class D weapons were BANNED. Only the govt is allowed to have Class D weapons. Class D is semi-auto rifles & shotguns, and pump shotguns, that hold >5 rounds. Thats the vast majority of long guns in the US.

Many handgun calibers were also BANNED. Learn your own laws. I am not in AUS & have never been there and I know more about it than you.


Sounds like you missed the debates. Again, search during 1995-1996. Yu will find a lot like this:
"The requirements are crucial in preventing guns from being used impulsively in suicide, homicide or domestic violence; for protecting children from gun accidents; and for preventing guns from being stolen and later used in the commission of crime." Hon. A. G. CORBETT, debate during second reading of the firearms bill, New South Wales Parliament

And some still argue its about reducing crime:
GUN LAWS TO PROTECT ALL AUSTRALIANS
PAVING THE WAY FOR A SAFER AUSTRALIA
http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/gun_control_0.pdf

 

There was an increase in crime rates but I doubt it can be called a "crime wave"

Yeah but if the base rate is only 10 a year then it does not take that much to increase the percentage

What was it the year AFTER that?
In other words - cherry pick much??

And in the years since then?? Cherry pick much?

Don't confuse poor journalism with good science - this is opinion not referenced or cited as to source let alone demonstrated that it too is not cherry picked to a fare thee well

Guns were not banned - some firearms were prohibited for the general population but claiming that guns were banned is the equivalent of saying that because some medications are taken off of the market all medication has been banned

Not even the title of that link fits with your claims - it talks of banning only one type of firearm - semi-automatic handguns to reduce firearm related deaths

So on which page does it claim that banning all guns is going to stop crime in general?

 

You have looked at the data, thats where the ABS chart you keep putting up comes from, and I have put up the numbers before - violent crime in 2001 increased 42% above the preban rate (and it was around 900 per 100,000 people - not small numbers at all). Your chart shows the huge increase and its 10+ year persistance.

Again, my data sources are the original sources - AUS ABS and US FBI crime reports. All you gave is derivative articles and nationmaster.

LOL thats precious, they were "prohibited" but not banned. I see you finally realize a lot of firearms were made illegal for people to own.

 

your own countrymen declared it a ban. Your politicians declared it a ban, wanna know why? Because it is a gun ban.
was it not a knee jerk reaction to Port Arthur "massacre"? you have alluded to the fact that this was the result of a series of gun related incidences, a crime wave.
You have claimed continually that reduction in firearms would lead to a reduction in violent crime......now you're back-pedaling.