Australia: Gun ban had NO effect on murder rate

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

My family owned guns and were affected by the new laws (which, by your statement, makes us "correct").

We support(ed) the laws and don't feel like it was for nothing; no more people have died from the new laws, but if a couple more kids don't wind up dead from firearm deaths, then how can you consider that to be a bad thing??

And if you still want to go shooting, you can still get a permit if you live out on property or you join the local club.

Well then, if giving up some guns was a good thing because it "might" have saved the lives of a few kids, then it would be an even better thing if you gave up all of your guns. That way you might save even more lives. So why not turn them all in? By continuing to own some guns, you are contributing to the possible deaths of innocent school children, right? Why do you want to see more children die a horrible death from shooting?

[Jasmin 0]

Quote

Quote

no more people have died from the new laws, but if a couple more kids don't wind up dead from firearm deaths, then how can you consider that to be a bad thing??

Well, if they ban driving, it would save much more people, including kids.

Funny you should mention it, but they're about to bring in even stricter rules on young drivers here

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[Jasmin 0]

Quote

By continuing to own some guns, you are contributing to the possible deaths of innocent school children, right? Why do you want to see more children die a horrible death from shooting?

Thankyou for completely missing my point and for the record I do not "continue to own some guns".

I no longer live on property and I have no need for a firearm in my line of work.

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

By continuing to own some guns, you are contributing to the possible deaths of innocent school children, right? Why do you want to see more children die a horrible death from shooting?

Thankyou for completely missing my point and for the record I do not "continue to own some guns".

I no longer live on property and I have no need for a firearm in my line of work.

Thank you for completely missing my point. I wasn't speaking only about you personally, but about every gun owner in Australia.

If giving up some guns was good, then wouldn't giving up all guns be even better? Should the remaining gun owners have to turn in their remaining firearms, "for the children"?

Just because you don't live on your own property, doesn't mean that you have no need for a self defense firearm. Is there something about Australia that makes attackers leave people alone in rental properties?

Likewise, just because you don't need a firearm for work, doesn't mean that you will never need one for personal self defense.

Gosh, there were so many things wrong with your statements, even though they were so short.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Just because you don't live on your own property, doesn't mean that you have no need for a self defense firearm. Is there something about Australia that makes attackers leave people alone in rental properties?

Likewise, just because you don't need a firearm for work, doesn't mean that you will never need one for personal self defense..

Honestly not a day goes by here in the Land Down under that I wish I was able to pack some heat... I swear when I riding to work in the mornings I'm constantly having to duck and dodge bullets.. And I tell you if I have to replace another window in my house becuase it has been shot out ill be pissed...

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Stumpy 284]

I said do you speaka my language?
He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich....
dum de dum de dum......

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

I said do you speaka my language?
He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich....
dum de dum de dum......

The Vegemite sandwich is a simple dish

1. Spread butter thickly and unevenly on bread.
2. Spread Vegemite a little less thickly, and unevenly on bread.
3. A slice of cheese can be added at this point. (optional)

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Stumpy 284]

Mmmmmm - one of the few things i agree with aussies on - the Marmite vs Vegemite argument.
Of course the main reason for either is to prevent against drop bear infestations.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[JesseP 0]

This is one of the stupidest threads I have ever read. A mildly dyslexic baboon would almost certainly be able to identify the fallacy in the original (and subsequent) posts.

Fact: The rate of gun murder IS DECLINING IN AUSTRALIA.

The fact that there was a decline prior to 1996 is irrelevant. That decline could have ended at any point, or begun to increase.

The only thing we know for a fact now, is that the increased restrictions have allowed this decline to continue for over a decade.

The argument that the restrictions (not ban Mr JohnRich, restrictions) had no effect because a decline existed before is utterly spurious. One cannot say that the decline prior to 1996 would have continued. What one can say is that the decline has continued since the increased restrictions. Hooray.

So I guess the main point of your argument is that the answer to our problem (i.e. our lack of gun murder) needs to be addressed by having more guns.

Brilliant. Please don't ever come to Australia.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The only thing we know for a fact now, is that the increased restrictions have allowed this decline to continue for over a decade.

Man, I hope you don't make policy for anything (country, company, household). You're flat out wrong; it's not a fact. Very little in the social sciences can ever be 'proven,' and even less is ever related to a single cause. If you think it's that simple, think again.

In the US gun activists like to point to the evidence that crime when down as CCW permits were increasingly allowed. Same evidence that you use to prove that gun bans make crime go down. So can both be right? Or are both just engaging in wishful thinking?

In the US the greatest determinant on crime is the size of the young male cohort in the general population. When the crest of the baby boom hits the latter teenage years, crime goes up. When the baby bust follows, it drops. I think CCW has had a minor positive effect on basis on common sense - crooks like easy fights. But true or not, I'm quite confident that CCW hasn't lead to the bloodbath the opposers predicted in each state. In fact, CCW permit holders tend to commit crimes at rates equal or lower to metro police departments.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

This is one of the stupidest threads I have ever read. A mildly dyslexic baboon would almost certainly be able to identify the fallacy in the original (and subsequent) posts.

Fact: The rate of gun murder IS DECLINING IN AUSTRALIA.

The fact that there was a decline prior to 1996 is irrelevant. That decline could have ended at any point, or begun to increase.

The only thing we know for a fact now, is that the increased restrictions have allowed this decline to continue for over a decade.

Ahhh, another anti-gunnie who hasn't taken Statistics 101, Logic 101, doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation, and who wants to have things both ways.

So, the declining rate before was just pure dumb luck, but the same declining rate now is entirely due to the new gun restrictions. Woohoo! Boy, I guess you confiscated all those guns just in the nick of time, because that declining rate was bound to turn around and start skyrocketing any day! Phew, that was a close call!

Um, couldn't the decline now, also end at any point, or begin to increase, just like the decline before? Oh wait, that's right, the new gun restrictions absolutely guarantee that it will continue to decline.

By the way, did you see my earlier message #56 about gun accident rates. Yeah, that one. Gun accidents were declining prior to the new gun restrictions, and then turned around and started climbing after the gun confiscation. How do you explain that one? That example is contrary to what you say is so obvious that a baboon could see it. So please explain for the baboons...

[mikkey 0]

Hi John,

Do you work for the NRA?

Firstly 90+% of the Australian population does not give a rats fart what you think and support our gun laws.

Secondly your little "graph" (source?) only shows that in 2 out of seven years the accidents were higher then the data point before the laws were implemented. It is really only because of an unsual high number in 2000 that the trend line goes upward. You are using your well known MO of taking snippets of information and using them for your weird obsession with countries with gun laws.

As somebody mentioned, these accidents have nothing to do with the gun laws here. Firstly we never had many guns compared to the US and lets put some context around this - the "numbers" represent between 20 and 40 accidents per year and might include police and military (yes accidents with arms happen there). Most non-military guns in this country are rifles and held by farmers and hunters (legally) and the numbers are so low that you can't conclude anything.

BTW what are the corresponding accident numbers for the US?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Stumpy 284]

Mate - no point using reason. I tried it and it doesn't work.We had the same in the UK, no-one really gave a rats ass about the gun ban because so few people had them before.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[77r 0]

Gun bans have no effect on the murder rate because the kind of people who will murder someone else are not the kind of people who are going to obey the law and not buy a gun.

The Gun Ban simply makes it illegal for good citizens to buy a gun for self defense against the criminals who have other channels to buy their guns through. Then again, if someone has murder on the mind it's just as easy to go get a knife.

[b1jercat 0]

You might also add suicide to your list. Edit to add law abiding citizens.

blues

jerry

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you work for the NRA?

Yes, they pay me quite handsomely to post pro-gun opinions in this relatively tiny website. That question smacks of a bit of paranoia. Actually, the real answer is "no", but that's not very exciting.

Quote

Firstly 90+% of the Australian population... support our gun laws.

Sorry, but that's insufficient justification to confiscate property from the remaining 10-% of law-abiding citizens who haven't done anything wrong to deserve it.

If 90+% of the citizens wanted to ban skydiving, would you just throw up your hands in exasperation and say "Oh well!", and obligingly give up your sport? Or would you protest and fight to keep it?

Don't people who do something as a minority of the population, and who aren't bothering anyone by doing so, deserve to have their civil rights respected?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

your little "graph" (source?) only shows that in 2 out of seven years the accidents were higher then the data point before the laws were implemented. It is really only because of an unsual high number in 2000 that the trend line goes upward. You are using your well known MO of taking snippets of information and using them for your weird obsession with countries with gun laws. As somebody mentioned, these accidents have nothing to do with the gun laws here.

I see there there is another anti-gun spokesman here without a proper understanding of statistics and logic. But I'm glad you brought this up, because it's a fine example of how anti-gun folks try to misinterpret things in their favor. So let's examine your points, one at a time.

1) "your little "graph" only shows that in 2 out of seven years the accidents were higher then the data point before the laws were implemented."

Why did you call the graph "little"? Was that to try and demean it and what it represents?

Why did you put "graph" in quotes? Are you implying that it's not really a graph? It sure looks like a typical graph to me. Once again, are you trying to imply that there's something wrong with it? If so, don't play emotional games with your descriptions - try and explain why.

This is the big one: you conveniently cherry-picked one high point ("the data point before the laws were implemented"), with which to make your comparison. That of course, is statistically invalid and inferior to the long term comparison. If you had chosen the data point for the year prior to that one, then all seven of the years after the gun ban were higher. Tsk tsk. That technique of yours doesn't gain your argument any credibility. The fact is, there are annual ups and downs, and one shouldn't cherry pick a single data point that is not representative of the average or the trend. But that's what you did...

The line with the dots represents the average, based upon the annual data points. And that clearly is on an upward swing, which started after the new gun ban.

2) "It is really only because of an unsual high number in 2000 that the trend line goes upward."

Incorrect again. Even without that spike, the trend would still be upward, at only a slightly lower angle. Look at the individual data points - they're increasing.

3) "You are using your well known MO of taking snippets of information and using them for your weird obsession with countries with gun laws."

It's not a snippet, it's a long term study of gun fatalties.

This "snippet" accusation is humorous, coming from you, after you just selectively cherry-picked one data point, upon which to base your own conclusions.

I'm not obsessed.

Being aware of the failure of gun laws in other nations is not "weird" - it's being well-informed.

Your overzealous usage of negative terminology reveals your bias, which fogs your objectivity in analysis.

4) "As somebody mentioned, these accidents have nothing to do with the gun laws here."

Now there's something upon which I agree with you. I'm not saying that the gun ban caused fatal gun accidents to increase. I'm saying that this is yet another example which demonstrates that gun death rates bear no relationship to gun laws.

And that's the fatal flaw in which anti-gun folks believe so fervently - that passing laws actually has some effect upon the behavior of criminals, the suicidal, and gun safety.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Sorry, but that's insufficient justification to confiscate property from the remaining 10-% of law-abiding citizens who haven't done anything wrong to deserve it.

... to deserve what, please? What's your reason to "fight" for "10-% of law-abiding citizens..." in Downunder, please?

What the hell do you know about "circumstances" Downunder? Perhaps same knowledge you have about UK citizens and their (gun) laws?

These posts are the pure nonsense, like usual. Need some more attention, right?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[downwardspiral 0]

Just out of curiosity John..... ever change anybody's mind?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I see there there is another anti-gun spokesman here without a proper understanding of statistics and logic. But I'm glad you brought this up, because it's a fine example of how anti-gun folks try to misinterpret things in their favor.

Damn, that's funny.

Quote

It's not a snippet, it's a long term study of gun fatalties.

The whole post you talk about your graph regarding gun accidents and then all of a sudden you call it a long term study in gun fatalities. While at the same time maintaining you are not using snippets.

Are you sure your real job isn't stand up comedy?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Don't people who do something as a minority of the population, and who aren't bothering anyone by doing so, deserve to have their civil rights respected?

What a great line. I can think of all sorts of other situations where it would apply. Unfortunately not many people feel as you do about them.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,085]

>Don't people who do something as a minority of the population, and
>who aren't bothering anyone by doing so, deserve to have their civil rights
>respected?

Why John! I do believe you are starting to become a bit of a liberal! All this "equal rights for everyone even if I disagree with them" along with support for gun rights may confuse some people here, though.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Don't people who do something as a minority of the population, and who aren't bothering anyone by doing so, deserve to have their civil rights respected?

What a great line. I can think of all sorts of other situations where it would apply. Unfortunately not many people feel as you do about them.

Yes. Very few people from either party do.

[mikkey 0]

You are so funny. The one who has demonstrated an ability to misrepresent data in many threads about your obsession with countries that control guns is you. And you have been shown to do so many times. Funny thing is that you always ignore the facts and continue with your rants.

I am quite sure I know more about stats then you do. Just a couple of key points:

Firstly - you introduce a graph (without source) that in your own (later) admission has nothing to do with gun laws down here.

Secondly the graph is based on such small "real" data (20-40 accidents a year) that you can not claim "trends" based on a couple of years with a few more accidents. Ever heard of the term "statistical significance testing"? Numbers are too small to show any significant change.

As an aside - just love the way how you think gun laws here are wrong when less then 10% are against it. With that logic most of your laws regulating what you can and can't do in the US are wrong....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As an aside - just love the way how you think gun laws here are wrong when less then 10% are against it. With that logic most of your laws regulating what you can and can't do in the US are wrong....

True Americans believe that rights don't rely on majority support. But our history shows that far more people espouse what you just said.