San Bernardino school shooter fired 10 shots, reloaded once

It's the direct link back to your source, which is the exact source for the data I used.

Nationmaster is problematic, so I don't use it.

I did. Homicides to homicides, sexual assault to sexual assault, robbery to robbery, aggravated and simple assaults to total assaults. Those are like crimes by the definitions used by each government. It's government compiled data. And when you include simple assaults in the US data, the violent crime rate goes way up. The Australians include simple assaults in their assault numbers and they include more than just forcible rape in their sexual assault numbers. It's as apples to apples as they get.

If you think my methodology is so flawed, when I shown where every number came from, show me what was included, ie, each category, in your 2009 Australian violent crime calculation. Include the numbers for each category and link to the exact government source for each. Should be easy enough for a single year.

You've got new data now.

Agreed on the US data; not so much on the Aus data, other than sexual assaults and assaults (note: post 2010 numbers for assault in Aus are greatly underreported). Murder rate went up then down, robbery rate went up and down, kidnapping rate went up and down again. All of these are lower than they were in 1996. It's the assaults that skew the violent crime rate so badly.

 

Also, I may have misinterpreted your statement that "But AUS has a much higher violent crime rate, you got rid of firearms and gained a much more violent society" as "AUS has a much higher violent crime rate" than the US rather than "AUS has a much higher violent crime rate" than in 1996. If the the latter was your intent, I apologize for the confusion.

 

And that was the entire point of the chart.

I have posted that chart many times in this forum, the purpose is to show that there was a crime bubble which began in 1996 when the AUS gun ban went into full effect, the crime wave peaked in 2001/2002, and then began to decline. Some crime types did not return to their pre-ban rate until 2009 and later. The AUS gun ban turned declining crime rates (rates were declining all over the western world since the late 1980's) into a crime bubble.

Almost all AUS crime rates show this bubble - homicide, sexual assault, robbery, assault with severe bodily injury, kidnapping, blackmail. Plot the AUS crime rates, the bubble is very clear.

Homicide increased 16% by the peak of the bubble. In fact, AUS firearm homicide rate had been steadily and nearly linearly declining since 1980 (rate of 0.75) to 2004 (rate of about 0.2) - the gun ban had almost no impact on the AUS firearm homicide rate. Yet total homicide increased 16% - that (and the fact that there was a surge in almost all crimes after 1996) implies that the disarmed citizenry was made into victims.

Compare that to the USA crime trends. The USA crime rates declined steadily from 1990 onwards. At the same time, the USA began in the 1980's a process of liberalizing state and federal gun laws, states began passing stand-your-ground and castle doctrine laws, people began carrying weapons (generally concealed), the number of gun owners increased dramatically.

The USA and AUS data paints a clear picture - more guns means less crime.

 

America has something most People ignore, very Violent Minorities that commit most heinous Crime, when you subtract that element and compare both societies as far as homogeneous population, America actually has far less crime.

 

Let me pose a question to you: Let's say you have two countries, one with very low homicide rates compared to the other... and the nation with the lower rate has less restrictive gun laws than the nation with the higher rate. Then, the nation with the very low rate of homicide decides to enact far more stringent gun control... resulting in a tripling of their homicide rate. Would you continue to embrace the same philosophy you outline above just because the homicide rate in that country was still lower than the other nation?

You see, the United Kingdom, as an example, once had gun laws less restrictive than the United States, and still had a homicide rate that was a fraction of ours. During the First World War, out of fear of a socialist uprising such as was then underway in the newly created Soviet Union, the UK enacted far stricter gun control laws; not to combat crime but to protect their governmental hold on power. Over the next few decades their homicide rate continued to climb; but since it was so low in the first place it remained lower than ours.

Would you look at those facts and still state support for a proposal with the potential to triple our homicide rate??

 

Lets see your evidence

 

I'll tell you what: I will get the exact figures for you the first chance I get (I'm currently not in a position to access the stats I have on file). BUT, I will ask you again to consider the question: from a purely hypothetical standpoint if nothing else. You made a statement to the effect that one nation had no gun control and high homicide rates and the other had low homicide rates and strict gun control and "That's enough for me." IF you were faced with statistical evidence that over time the nation with gun control saw a far greater increase in homicide rates than the one without gun control, even though the nation without gun control still possessed a higher homicide rate overall, would you still stand on your original statement?

 

It would depend. Did that nation go thru a world or civil war? Did a dictator take over? What other factors were at play?

 

lol,
Really ?
Do you play much Mortal Kombat
and those online Soldier Boy Games ???
Call of Duty ????

 

Do you like potato salad?

 

No, me like Cole Slaw & sweet pickles

 

Me too

 

It's interesting that in one place you say that one country has a law and lower rates versus the other country and that's "all you need to know". Now, suddenly you're all about "what other factors were at play"?? Do you see the intrinsic inconsistency inherent to your position?

 

No I dont

 

Interesting. I'm sorry, but if you can't see that inconsistency then I fail to see how ANY factor, no matter how compelling, will be sufficient to shake you from your preconceived notion.

 

Something we have in common

 

This is what happens when you engage in conversation with someone who has no desire whatsoever to have an honest discussion.

 

Blah blah blah. Same thing every time

 

I'm not sure if it's "has no desire" or "is not capable".

 

Has no desire

 

Xie xie ni.

 

Howdy doodie

 

Nah. Trolls do it on purpose.

 

Well, in this case I have been endeavoring to engage you honestly and without rancor, and pursue a rational conversation. I asked you a simple question that you appear to be refusing to answer and I am curious as to why. You can attack me if you wish, but it does nothing to create an environment of respectful give and take.

 

Okay, I promised to find some data, and while I couldn't find the original study I looked at I did a check of rates through the following site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

Now, you stated that: "They have gun control and low gun deaths. We don't and have high gun deaths. That's enough for me." I find that statement over simplistic, and when you look at the figures even in a rudimentary fashion you find something surprising.

In 1914, the UK had a per capita homicide rate of approximately .81 PER 100,000. That same year, the United States had a rate of 5.9. At the time, the United States had laws such as the Sullivan Act in New York City and other restrictions in different jurisdictions on the carry of defensive firearms; while the UK at the time had essentially no laws governing firearms ownership, yet had a per-capita homicide rate nearly 7 times lower than the U.S.! Based on your “that’s all I need to know” mindset, then we would have to believe, considering those numbers, that gun control was the problem and contributed to the homicide rates.

By 2002, the UK was up by a factor of 1.4 to a per capita homicide rate of 2.1, while the United States was actually DOWN to 5.6 per capita. This was, of course, after a period of rapid growth in firearms ownership in the U.S. after the Clinton Administration's pursuit of restrictive gun laws.

By 2011 (the last year I could find figures for the UK) the UK was admittedly back down a little, to 1.0 per 100,000, while the U.S. was down even further than in 2002, to 4.7. In the end, for a "that's all I need to know" mindset, the United States had actually EXPANDED gun ownership and freedoms and reduced homicide rates from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1914 to 4.7 per 100,000. At the same time, over the same period, the UK had placed ever more draconian restrictions on firearms ownership and RAISED their per capita homicide rate from .81 per 100,000 to 1 per 100,000. So, a nation enacted strict gun control and increased their homicide rates, while another nation expanded gun ownership dramatically... and reduced their homicide rates. So...."That's all I need to know."