Australia: Gun ban had NO effect on murder rate

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why is it that the first thing gun controllers call for when crime goes up or a terrible attack happens is restrictions on the availability of legal guns?

Because countries with strict gun control laws have lower crime rates.

However, at some point there might be deminishing returns, or other variables have become much stronger, at a certain level of control cultural leanings might come more into play.

Why do you keep trotting out that line when you;ve been shown that it simply is not true? Give it up.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You're really talking yourself into a corner here. First off, you've seen several times that the presence or absence gun control is not a good indicator of high or low crime rates, so your statement is invalid on its face.

That's a different statement. I said the following:

Quote

crime rates in western countries with significant restrictions are generally better than crime rates in western countries with more lacks gun laws.

try and spot the difference. My original statement is true.

[Kennedy 0]

Actually it's not, but you go ahead and think what you like.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Why do you keep trotting out that line when you;ve been shown that it simply is not true? Give it up.

You asked my why a certain group does something. I gave you my opinion on that.

Your reply is directed to the thought process of the group you asked me about.

Those two are seperate issues.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Actually it's not, but you go ahead and think what you like.

Crime rates in western countries with strict gun laws are generally not better than crime rates in countries with lacks gun laws?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Banning legal gun ownership seeks to reduce the number of (legally owned) gun related deaths due to handling accidents...

Actually, data available elsewhere shows that this did not happen. Fatal firearms accidents actually increased after the gun ban. Therefore, if you think the ban is responsible for these changes, then it accomplished a negative result.

Source?

See the attached chart. Note that the line at 1996 is when the gun ban took place. Notice how the downward trend in accidental firearm deaths before the ban suddenly changed to an upward trend after the ban.

How do you explain that one?

If fewer guns means fewer gun deaths, then this should not have happened.

This chart sort of shoots a big hole in your anti-gun theory...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If fewer guns means fewer gun deaths, then this should not have happened.

This statement is not correct.

Lets say the statement is: this years crop yilded more apples. One cannot prove that statement false by saying that there were fewer red apples.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Crime rates in western countries with strict gun laws are generally not better than crime rates in countries with lacks gun laws?

I showed you the fallacy of that line of thinking in another gun thread just a few days ago, here.

Be sure to review your acknowledgement of those facts too, in your response with message #95.

My, how quickly you have forgotten those truths which are inconvenient to your set beliefs.

There is no correlation between strictness of gun laws and murder rate.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I showed you the fallacy of that line of thinking in another gun thread just a few days ago, here.

The statement is correct. I agree with you that it doesn't show correlation. Why are you and kennedy having such a hard time understanding the difference?


I'll repeat part of my reponse in post 95 you mention:

Quote

Fact remains that Western countries with strict gun control laws are fairing better. I would venture to guess that gun control plays a role in that, amongst many other variables. For those only able to think in black and white, that does not mean that I think that strict gun laws are the route to go for the US, or that it would have the same effect in the US.

Quote

There is no correlation between strictness of gun laws and murder rate.

I agree with you, though fact remains that those countries with strict gun laws tend to fair better. Hence my answer to Kennedy as to why anti-gun groups tend to react with the proposal of stricter gun laws. (since both you and Kennedy seem to have trouble doing this, note that I am giving my opinion on a behaviour, not the validity of that behaviour).

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

See the attached chart. Note that the line at 1996 is when the gun ban took place. Notice how the downward trend in accidental firearm deaths before the ban suddenly changed to an upward trend after the ban.

How do you explain that one?

If fewer guns means fewer gun deaths, then this should not have happened.

This chart sort of shoots a big hole in your anti-gun theory...

Well, apart from the fact that I never put forth any anti-gun theory, much less supported it, your post actually proves my statement that raw numbers mean nothing and can actually be easily misused to "prove" anything and its exact opposite, often both at the same time
Let's take your little graph for example, what it shows is simply the rate of accidental gun deaths by population in Australia and how it changed over time.
What does it tell us if we correlate it with the fact that certain types of guns have become illegal at a certain point in time and have presumably been either confiscated or otherwise rendered unserviceable?
Nothing at all! Or at least not what you are trying to claim.
Let's see why. Let's say that as a result of the ban 2 million hand guns have been confiscated. Does this mean that Australia is now a gun-free country?
Of course not! There are still plenty of them around, among them:

- illegal firearms that are still circulating since (gasp!) criminals have inexplicably failed to turn them in
- I'm not 100% sure but I think law enforcement officers still carry and sometimes even fire weapons in the course of their actions
- I don't think hunting has been made illegal, unless hunters have been forced to use only bow and arrows hunting rifles should still be legal and available in a non trivial number

So how do I explain the upward trend in accidental gun deaths since the ban?
Well, since confiscated weapons cannot possibly reappear and accidentaly kill people, we can only assume that more people get accidentally killed by guns that are still legal and hence still being used, or by guns that were illegal even before the ban and are therefore unaffected by it.
Your claim that "this should not have happened" is utterly without merit as it assumes a causal relationship between the confiscation of a certain number of weapons and the number of accidental deaths caused by weapons that have not been subjected to confiscation.
There is no such relationship and to try and prove it through raw numbers is utter nonsense.
For example, if you were able to break down the totals by type of gun or circumstance you might see that the number of deaths due to msihandling of guns used for domestic defence has gone down to zero (assuming this type gun has been banned) but the number of deaths attributable to hunting accidents has more than doubled.
Does this mean the ban has failed? Of course not, if hunting is still legal how could the ban have prevented those hunting-related deaths?
Can you actualy break down those stats?
I suspect that in order to do so you'll have to look somewhere other than the pro-gun website you nicked that graph from.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Well, apart from the fact that I never put forth any anti-gun theory, much less supported it...

Yes you did. Message #20:

"Banning legal gun ownership seeks to reduce the number of (legally owned) gun related deaths due to handling accidents or "red rage" type shootings, and maybe to prevent legally purchased firearms ending up on the black market thus resulting in illegal gun ownership.

As for the claim that murder rates would have kept declining at the same rate even without a ban, all I can say is that without any supporting evidence this is wishful thinking at best (or bad science at the very least)."

Quote

So how do I explain the upward trend in accidental gun deaths since the ban? Well, since confiscated weapons cannot possibly reappear and accidentaly kill people, we can only assume that more people get accidentally killed by guns that are still legal and hence still being used, or by guns that were illegal even before the ban and are therefore unaffected by it.

Right. And that works the same way for the criminals. They continue to use the guns that they didn't turn in, or which are still in circulation, for their crimes. All the gun ban accomplished was to take legal guns away from people who weren't the problem in the first place.

You can't have it both ways. If you claim that guns still in circulation create no causal connection between the gun ban and gun accident rates, then you have to also say that, likewise, those same guns create no causal connection between the gun ban and gun crime rates. You can't have it different ways.

You claimed that the gun ban was enacted to reduce gun accidents. And I showed you that the gun accidents increased after the ban. So, you should now be willing to admit that the gun ban was useless.

And given that the gun ban didn't achieve the desired goal, and furthermore, confiscated lawful property from law-abiding citizens, it amazes me that half of the people in this poll still believe that this was a good idea.

Whatcha' gonna confiscate next from the law-abiding citizens? Yeehaw! Go get 'em!

Quote

Your claim that "this should not have happened" is utterly without merit as it assumes a causal relationship between the confiscation of a certain number of weapons and the number of accidental deaths caused by weapons that have not been subjected to confiscation. There is no such relationship.

Ditto with crime guns. You are starting to get it correct!

Quote

you'll have to look somewhere other than the pro-gun website you nicked that graph from.

First of all, it wasn't "stolen". It was a public document and the excerpt complies with copyright law. Shame on you for choosing to use such negative terminology.

Actually, that graph came from an anti-gun study. Are your legs tired from jumping to a conclusion? Don't look now, but your anti-gun bias is showing...

[PLFXpert 0]

I personally have never handled a gun (except the super-squirt kind). I took a picture of the gun with its barrel tied in a knot located at the United Nations when I was in 8th grade and snuck out on a trip to NY from FL. (yes, it's true. ). I'm no big fan of weaponry.

Having said that, I don't see banning them doing much good, either.

What I find hilarious is some people don't realize for every fact one finds to support their opinions on such subjects, their are equal amounts of opposite facts (re: statistics, an example, or the like) that support their anti-opinion. So, really, what difference does it make what happened in Austrailia, alone?

Good. Great. Grand. Wonderful.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So, really, what difference does it make what happened in Austrailia.

For the same reason we discuss skydiving accidents in the "Incidents" forum: we should try to learn from the mistakes of others, rather than repeat them.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

What I find hilarious is some people don't realize for every fact one finds to support their opinions on such subjects, their are equal amounts of opposite facts (re: statistics, an example, or the like) that support their anti-opinion.

You can prove any theory if you are allowed to choose facts (and ignore facts which contradict with your theory).
That's why for a scientifically correct theory _all_ facts needs to be explained, not only some of them.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

You claimed that the gun ban was enacted to reduce gun accidents. And I showed you that the gun accidents increased after the ban. So, you should now be willing to admit that the gun ban was useless.

This is about as productive as talking to a rock. You either really don't get it or you're too biased to admit that your arguments are all either strawmen or utter nonsense.
I officially give up.
You all have a nice day.

Vale

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

For the same reason we discuss skydiving accidents in the "Incidents" forum: we should try to learn from the mistakes of others, rather than repeat them.

What I fail to see is how the ban in your example can be classified as a mistake. "Had no effect"

But, again, I am of the same opinion that banning guns would not be an adequate solution to gun-related violence.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What I fail to see is how the ban in your example can be classified as a mistake. "Had no effect".

If you confiscate property from law-abiding people, and it proves to do nothing to achieve the stated societal goal, then how can that be anything else but a mistake?

Give them back their guns, and apologize.

Or do you think it's perfectly acceptable for the government to go around taking property from law-abiding people for no good reason?

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

What I fail to see is how the ban in your example can be classified as a mistake. "Had no effect".

If you confiscate property from law-abiding people, and it proves to do nothing to achieve the stated societal goal, then how can that be anything else but a mistake?

Give them back their guns, and apologize.

Or do you think it's perfectly acceptable for the government to go around taking property from law-abiding people for no good reason?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[lurch 0]

Repost. Although the recipes are an excellent contribution, I'd suggest a different recipe each time. Those of us who pay attention to the recipe wars are counting on you to provide variety in your dietary offerings. That said, if I substitute beef for the squirrel in the recipe in the other thread, will it come out alright, or do I need to adjust cooking times and preparation procedures for optimal outcome?

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[ExAFO 0]

CROWN ROAST OF LAMB SERVED WITH PAN GRAVY

2 racks of lamb that your butcher has cut most fat from & tied into a
crown roast
1 med. onion, diced sm.
1 lg. carrot, diced sm.
1 stalk celery, diced sm.
1 (12 oz.) can beef stock or 2 cubes beef bouillon
2 tbsp. flour
Salt
Pepper
Garlic powder
Onion powder
Few ounces red wine
2 tbsp. oil
1. Preheat oven to 450 degrees.
2. Sprinkle roast inside and out with salt, pepper, garlic powder and onion powder.

3. Insert a meat thermometer into the thickest part of the meat without letting it touch any bone.

4. Place 1/2 of the diced onion, carrot and celery in the bottom of a roasting pan.

5. Place the roast on top of the diced vegetables in the roasting pan.

6. Cover the tips of the rib bones with foil to prevent burning.

7. Place the roast in the hot oven and immediately reduce the temperature to 350 degrees.

8. Saute the remaining 1/2 vegetables in the oil until lightly brown.

9. Add can of beef stock or bouillon cubes and appropriate amount of water. Allow this liquid to simmer slowly until it reduces by 1/2.

10. When the roast is cooked, remove from oven. The internal temperature of the roast will be 135 degrees for rare, 155 degrees for medium or 165 degrees for well done. The meat will cook for approximately 20 to 25 minutes per pound for medium.

11. Now that the roast has been removed from the oven, put it aside to rest and quickly complete the pan gravy.

12. Pour off all but 2 tablespoons fat drippings from the roasting pan. Heat the 2 tablespoons drippings in a saucepan.

13. Add the flour to the drippings and cook, while stirring, until nicely browned (about 5 minutes). This is called a "Roux", and will thicken the gravy.

14. Use your third and fourth hands to heat the roasting pan on the stove top. When things get sizzling pretty well, pour in a few ounces of water and red wine to de-glaze the pan. Continue stirring until everything is loose from the pan.

15. Now strain all the liquid from the roasting pan and the other pan with the beef stock through a fine strainer.

16. Take this strained liquid and slowly mix into the roux with a wire whisk on medium heat.

17. Continue stirring the gravy while it simmers. Taste and adjust seasoning.

18. Hopefully, the gravy didn't take more than 15 minutes. That's about how long you want the meat to rest before carving.

19. Present the roast and gravy on the dinner table in the fancy serving plate and gravy boat that you received at your wedding shower. If the butcher gave you the paper frills to put on the ends of the bones, use them now.

20. Carve by slicing down along each rib bone and serve with the pan gravy on the side or mint jelly.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Jasmin 0]

WARNING: Australian in the thread!

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. (And there's two clubs within five minutes of 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."

[lurch 0]

Excellent! Thank you.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[georgerussia 0]

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.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

Easy Arugula Salad

Prep Time: 15 Minutes
Ready In: 15 Minutes
Yields: 4 servings

INGREDIENTS:
4 cups young arugula leaves, rinsed and dried
1 cup cherry tomatoes, halved
1/4 cup pine nuts
2 tablespoons grapeseed oil or olive oil
1 tablespoon rice vinegar
salt to taste
freshly ground black pepper to taste
1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1 large avocado - peeled, pitted and sliced

DIRECTIONS:

1. In a large plastic bowl with a lid, combine arugula, cherry tomatoes, pine nuts, oil, vinegar, and Parmesan cheese. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Cover, and shake to mix.

2. Divide salad onto plates, and top with slices of avocado.

You forgot the artichoke hearts.

Gravity Waits for No One.

[damion75 0]

Quote

CROWN ROAST OF LAMB SERVED WITH PAN GRAVY

2 racks of lamb that your butcher has cut most fat from & tied into a
crown roast
1 med. onion, diced sm.
1 lg. carrot, diced sm.
1 stalk celery, diced sm.
1 (12 oz.) can beef stock or 2 cubes beef bouillon
2 tbsp. flour
Salt
Pepper
Garlic powder
Onion powder
Few ounces red wine
2 tbsp. oil
1. Preheat oven to 450 degrees.
2. Sprinkle roast inside and out with salt, pepper, garlic powder and onion powder.

3. Insert a meat thermometer into the thickest part of the meat without letting it touch any bone.

4. Place 1/2 of the diced onion, carrot and celery in the bottom of a roasting pan.

5. Place the roast on top of the diced vegetables in the roasting pan.

6. Cover the tips of the rib bones with foil to prevent burning.

7. Place the roast in the hot oven and immediately reduce the temperature to 350 degrees.

8. Saute the remaining 1/2 vegetables in the oil until lightly brown.

9. Add can of beef stock or bouillon cubes and appropriate amount of water. Allow this liquid to simmer slowly until it reduces by 1/2.

10. When the roast is cooked, remove from oven. The internal temperature of the roast will be 135 degrees for rare, 155 degrees for medium or 165 degrees for well done. The meat will cook for approximately 20 to 25 minutes per pound for medium.

11. Now that the roast has been removed from the oven, put it aside to rest and quickly complete the pan gravy.

12. Pour off all but 2 tablespoons fat drippings from the roasting pan. Heat the 2 tablespoons drippings in a saucepan.

13. Add the flour to the drippings and cook, while stirring, until nicely browned (about 5 minutes). This is called a "Roux", and will thicken the gravy.

14. Use your third and fourth hands to heat the roasting pan on the stove top. When things get sizzling pretty well, pour in a few ounces of water and red wine to de-glaze the pan. Continue stirring until everything is loose from the pan.

15. Now strain all the liquid from the roasting pan and the other pan with the beef stock through a fine strainer.

16. Take this strained liquid and slowly mix into the roux with a wire whisk on medium heat.

17. Continue stirring the gravy while it simmers. Taste and adjust seasoning.

18. Hopefully, the gravy didn't take more than 15 minutes. That's about how long you want the meat to rest before carving.

19. Present the roast and gravy on the dinner table in the fancy serving plate and gravy boat that you received at your wedding shower. If the butcher gave you the paper frills to put on the ends of the bones, use them now.

20. Carve by slicing down along each rib bone and serve with the pan gravy on the side or mint jelly.

That does sound delicious. But I like to sprinkle some herbs in during the cooking process. Perhaps some rosemary?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.