San Bernardino school shooter fired 10 shots, reloaded once

well I sort of disagree. what the BM members want to do is pretend they are limiting criminals in order to pander to the low wattage masses while PUNISHING people whom they perceive vote against the leftwing agenda that almost every BM member supports

 

WE will not pass elephant control there

 

Oh ye of little faith, 6 days ago:

When is the NRA complicit? San Bernardino school shooting comes after Republicans move to relax gun restrictions

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/11/whe...r-republicans-move-to-relax-gun-restrictions/

 

It is no different than the actions of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting. Just hours after the incident, they were asking for donations of thirty two dollars, one dollar for each victim.

 

Good thing I did not write that article

 

It's the same level of science you're using.

 

Science is not required to pass a law

 

But AUS has a much higher violent crime rate, you got rid of firearms and gained a much more violent society.

 

Not actually true. If we look at the government statistics published here:

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html

and compare those numbers to the 1996 population of 18.31 million and 2013 population of 23.13 million, we see that only only criminal statistics has increased since 1996, sexual assault. That's a slight increase of 8% over the 17 years of data.

Australia also has lower numbers compared to the US.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

Yep, a lot of law is based on emotion. As for science, few people really understand the scientific method and can tell the difference between pseudo science and science. The moment someone uses the phrase 'science fact' I know they lack understanding. What many people, particularly, those susceptible to tailored pseudo science, is adding the phrases 'Scientists say' or 'Science Proves' to an obviously biases and flawed study to give legitimacy to a particular narrative such as with Kellerman. The most abused method for ascertaining and letitimizing a 'science Fact' is with the use and misunderstanding of statistics, for instance, you can have a stat that suggests a certain observation is 100% meaning it occurs 100 time out of 100 and it doesn't mean a fact has been discovered, I.e., it is statistically possible to flip a coin heads 100 out of 100 flips.

 

Those are the absolute numbers, not rates. Australia has a smaller population than the USA, and has lower absolute numbers. But when normalized into crimes per 100,000 people, AUS is much more violent than the USA.


USA data from FBI Uniform Crime Reports, AUS data from Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports Database.

AUS has a lower homicide rate (about 2 per 100,000 people) than the USA (about 4.9). But note the magnitude of the homicide rates and the violent crime rates. AUS has 3 fewer homicides per 100,000 people, but 500 more violent crimes per 100,000 people.

And note the trend.

 

But but but crime in Australia is so different that no mortal may understand it and compare it to another country!

Well, except guns, that's a direct correlation.

Oh, and here's their suicide rate.

 

I took the absolute numbers in the Australian government data and normalized them against their populations in 1996 and 2013, the beginning and end dates of their data set. I understand how "rates" work.

In 1996, the population was 18.31 million, or 183 100k population. The number of murders in 1996 was 314. Divided into 183.1, that's a rate per 100k of 1.7419. In 2013, the number of murders was 249, and the population had increased to 23.13 million, or 231.3 100k population. That's a rate of 249/231.3, or 1.076524. The same methodology applies to all of the other crime statistics listed in my Australian crime statistics link, and only the sexual assault rate shows any increase from 1996.

If we total every violent crime in the chart from http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html for 2009 we get 50,392, and divided by the 2009 100k population factor of 216.9 (2009 population 21.69 million), that's a total violent crime rate of 232.3283. Compared to 2013's violent crime per 100k population rate of 192.1747, that's a decline. The rate of decline in Australia's violent crime from 1996 to 2013 was 27%.

For 1996, 2009 and 2013, the violent crime rate in the US was 636.6, 431.9 and 383.2, respectively. Of course, comparing country to country rates isn't valid as the same types of crimes aren't necessarily rolled up in each country's violent crime rate. From 1996 to 2013 the US violent crime rate declined 40%, so the US is getting better more quickly. The murder rate decline in Australia 1996-2013 was -37%; the total homicide rate decline was -39%. The decline in the US for homicides was also -39% over that time period.

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

All while, in the US, scores of millions new guns were sold, millions or people bought 'assault weapons', and millions more carried concealed firearms in public.

 

I know. Ain't that just amazing?

 

But... but...but... more guns = more death!

 

I took the rates directly from the FBI UCR and the Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports. Those are the official rates, no calculating or middleman involved.

 

Can you provide a link to the Australian data? Comparing two violent crime rates when the definition of violent crime differs between the two countries isn't a valid comparison.

I calculated the rates using the only data necessary. There isn't any other way to look at it.

 

Old, old argument. Western nations have fairly well standardized definitions and comparisons. Labels may differ, but comparisons are still valid when you compare the proper crimes to each other. Why do you think your quick little comparison is better than comparisons by people who have done this work for many years? Its the curse of the internet, people think that with a few clicks on google they are an expert.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/second+level+view?ReadForm&prodno=4510.0&viewtitle=Recorded%20Crime%20-%20Victims,%20Australia~2011~Latest~07/06/2012&&tabname=Past%20Future%20Issues&prodno=4510.0&issue=2011&num=&view=&

 

Interesting claim, given that many members here understand that the UK and US definitions of homicide vary significantly. In Australia, the statistics for "sexual assault" inlcude rape, groping and child molestation while the US rape statistic only includes actual rape with penetration due to the 2013 re-definition of the crime. In Australia, the definition for the crime of "assault" is

"A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person's consent, or with the other person's consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person's consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person's purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.

Additionally, all State criminal codes have further definitions of actions that may constitute an assault, such as causing physical discomfort by the use of: heat, light, electrical force, and odorous gases."

In the FBI UCR data for aggravated assault, the definition is more strict: "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed."

Therefore comparisons of assault statistics and sexual assault statistics are not valid between the US and Australia.

I took the actual Australian government data and performed the analysis. It's relatively simple statistics. What I don't know is anything about the data that makes up your graph. I always try to work with the raw data for the correct understanding of the data.

Perhaps, but I've got a bachelors in Mathematics and a Masters in Operations Management along with 30 years experience in data collection and analysis.

Here's where the training and expertise come in. The first thing I noticed about your graph is that the data interpretation ended in 2009, almost 8 years ago. That's an immediate red flag to the trained eye that the period of data examined was cherry picked. The other question that comes to mind when looking at that graph is "is this an apples to apples comparison"? There's nothing to assume that one collection of data called violent crime matches another country's collection of violent crime.

From your link, which isn't a direct link to your chart and the data behind it, we see that the Australian Bureau offers Statistics from 2015, six years after the data ended in your chart.

Some excerpts from that link:



This shows a significant decline in robbery, taking their rate per 100k population down to (9000/239.7) 37.54. The US robbery rate in 2015 was 101.9

Unsurprisingly, the data in this chart matches the data provided in my link to the Australian Bureaus of Statistics data through 2013.

There is no set of data that shows that Australia is more violent than the US as a whole or in any selected categories. The two categories that offer the closest comparison are homicide and robbery, and in both cases Australia has lower rates per 100k population than the US does. That's to be expected, as they always have had lower rates. The laws they passed in 1996 and again in 2003 had no material impact on their crime rates when normalized against expected declines. Even the most casual perusal of the data at http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html would show that.

 

One round magazines or clips as the libs like to spout.

 

My data comes directly from the FBI UCR and the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports, I gave you the link to the AUS crime reports. Your data comes from the FBI UCR and some middleman report - so much for working with the direct raw data.

The AUS govt has a vested interest in supporting their gun control/ban, and they don't make it easy to look at the data. Unlike the USA FBI UCR which can be downloaded in excel and in already compiled multi-year tables, you have to wade through every year of the AUS reports.

Go through the work, and you will come up with my charts exactly.

On definitions, labels vary, you can't simply directly compare by label.

 

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Note the gov.au portion of website link above. That's the Australian Government Australian Institute of Criminology.

http://www.aic.gov.au/index.html

"The Australian Institute of Criminology is Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. We seek to promote justice and reduce crime by undertaking and communicating evidence-based research to inform policy and practice."

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html

The data is right there in an easily copied table.

In the table, for total robbery, the 2010 figure is 14631. For 2011 it's 13653. For 2012 it's 13163. For 2013 it's 11698

Those numbers match the data contained in the chart in the first reference in your link:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/second+level+view?ReadForm&prodno=4510.0&viewtitle=Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia~2011~Latest~07/06/2012&&tabname=Past Future Issues&prodno=4510.0&issue=2011&num=&view=&

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...DA3DED213BAE8114CA257178001B6949?opendocument

We're using exactly the same data from the same government source. In fact, if you look at the bottom of the page I cite it links right back to the 2015 yearly data in your site.

Not true, and why did you stop at 2009 when your Aus source goes through 2015, as does the FBI UCR data?

Looking at the actual violent crime data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and including the assault numbers which unlike the US figures include simple assault data, and including the sexual assault figure which includes molestation and groping which the US rape figures do not, the calculation for 2013 violent crime rate for Australia, made of the data for murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, armed and unarmed robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and kidnapping, is 655 per 100k. The FBI UCR rate for the US for 2013 was 279.1 but does not include simple assaults or any sexual assaults other than rape. The two numbers cannot be compared.

What violence categories are you including in your Australian figures?[/QUOTE]

 

Found another resource for us: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf

From this BJS data we can get numbers for sexual assault and both aggravated and simple assault numbers for the US. In 2013, adding up the murder and robbery rates from UCR data and the sexual assault and total assault numbers from table 1 in the BJS report we find a total of 5.573 million violent crimes in the US, divided by 3165 (US population in 2013 was 316,497,531) for a violent crime rate of 1761 per 100k. Man, those simple assault numbers sure do add up.

 

[/QUOTE]


Links at the bottom of a page are not worth much. The best case is NationMaster, which claims to compare data between nations, when you take the time to actually track down the NationMaster data you find NM compares data from different years and different sources, and often the actual data source cannot be found.

You cannot compare labels. If you want to compare violent crime in AUS to violent crime in the USA, you do not compare the violent crime table in the FBI UCR to the violent crime table in the AUS database, for the reasons you mentioned. You have to download the data, and compile violent crime rates by assembling like crimes (not like labels).

I stopped at 2009 because I compiled the data in 2013 and only AUS reports up to 2009 were available (2010 was tentative).

And you should go back to the reason for the chart - to show that in the USA crime rates decreased when state and federal gun controls were being relaxed and there were increasing numbers of guns in circulation; while in AUS after the gun ban/controls crime rates increased and remained high.