Are you more dead if killed by a gun rather than a knife? Overall homicide rate is a more accurate and honest metric to consider.
number of mass shootings
Again, are you more dead in a mass shooting that a single shooting? Would you trade a single 50 person mass shooting to get 100 single person shootings, or 100 stabbings?
I just spent some time on that site and can't find any of the figures mentioned here. There were some reports from 5-13 years ago but nothing current. Did you double check the numbers from the video yourself? Do you have another source besides this video?
He uses the same source as the video and also explains how the data from your source was manipulated. You are being lied to, NMN, and continuing the lie yourself.
First note that gun ownership exhibits a very interesting pattern that isn't often acknowledged. There was a large gun buyback in 1996 and 1997 that reduced gun ownership from 3.2 to 2.2 million guns. But immediately after that gun ownership increased dramatically and is essentially back to where it was before the buyback. Why is that important? Well, if it is the number of guns that is important, you should initially see a large drop in suicides or crimes and then see it increasing. Yet, in none of these data series do you observe that pattern.
Rosenthal says: "Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings." Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn't even track mass murder as a specific crime category. . . .
Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach "control groups" at Harvard?)
New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.
The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth -- including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.
While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed. . . .
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
Using your sources, list the number of homicides with guns per year in Australia as I have done above through 2012. You made a claim that they were up 19 percent. I say that is a lie or, if you have to be PC about it, a fib;)
So, that's a NO then on those numbers? Accusing me of the exact thing you are doing is seriously fucked up, dude. You completly fail at the standard your set for me and then don't have the balls to admit it.
Do you consider an example of a country that banned and thus decreased the number of guns in that country and then had a decrease in the number of murders with guns to be proof that less guns equal less deaths?
No. I'm simply stating that it is incorrect to assert that having very strict gun laws leads to more murder or a totalitarian state. Australia is proof of this.
No, but I needn't use a specific - banned was used as an absolute for hypothetical purposes.
assert that having very strict gun laws leads to more murder or a totalitarian state.
And who is asserting this? No one here.
Stating that restricting gun ownership prevents the citizens from effectively resisting tyranny does not equal saying that it will lead to tyranny. Also, countering an argument made that 'it can't happen here' with examples that the overwhelming majority of nations in history have devolved into tyranny does not mean to imply that restricting gun ownership will lead to tyranny.
Likewise, providing examples where the restriction of gun ownership did correlate to increased murder rates does not imply causation. But since the examples are usually provided to counter the claim that a restriction will decrease the murder rate, such examples are in rebuttal, not a claim that it will indeed occur.
I think there is quite a bit more to why homicide rates go up and down than simply the gun laws. You would probably know more about this than I would but aren't there countries that have plenty of guns, less restrictive laws, and somehow manage to not shoot each other as much as we do? Why is that?
Looking at the actual data from the Australian government, not pro-gun control orgs/blogs, homicides in which firearms were used has been on a steady decline since the late 1970's, with the usual statistical outliers such as Port Arthur. The murder rate did in fact rise in 1999. Robbery rates (elsewhere at the site) in fact rose until 2007. Mark is right in that nothing like Port Arthur has happened since most Australian's gun rights were taken away, but nothing on that scale had happened before then, either. Moreover, mass killings have happened since Port Arthur, but with one exception have been arson. I know that makes Nikto happier, but it does nothing for me or most other people. Actually, I'd much rather be shot than burned alive.
Certainly the firearms ban did nothing to suicide rates. It just made the Nikto's of the world happier that fewer used firearms, but anyone with more than half a brain knows that anyone using a firearm to commit suicide isn't making a "cry for help", they want to die, and if firearms aren't readily available, they choose some other equally lethal means such as jumping off of high places.
22 comments:
completely demolishes
Imperial declarations are always true!
Australian Gun Ban Resulted In Higher Crime Rates
Armed Robberies up 69%
Assaults with Guns up 28%
Home Invasions up 21%
Murders with Guns up 19%
You sure have a funny definition of "paranoid fantasy".
I don't see a source for these figures. Where is it?
The last number is simply a lie. In 1996, there were 69 gun homicides, excluding Port Arthur. In 2012, there were 30.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/number_of_gun_homicides
There is also another figure you omitted. The number of mass shootings since the law took effect:0
Further, where is the tyrannical government in Australia?
69 gun homicides
Are you more dead if killed by a gun rather than a knife? Overall homicide rate is a more accurate and honest metric to consider.
number of mass shootings
Again, are you more dead in a mass shooting that a single shooting? Would you trade a single 50 person mass shooting to get 100 single person shootings, or 100 stabbings?
where is the tyrannical government
Strawman alert!
No doubt, GD. The argument that we must arm ourselves against a future tyrannical government is indeed a strawman.
That's not the question you asked, do try to keep up...with your own argument.
do try to keep up...with your own argument.
That would be a first.
Overall homicide rate is a more accurate and honest metric
Given that's the case, why would a guy who looks to a comedian as a source of truth use it?
I don't see a source for these figures. Where is it?
Referred to in the YouTube comments for the video. From the Australian Bureau of Criminology.
I just spent some time on that site and can't find any of the figures mentioned here. There were some reports from 5-13 years ago but nothing current. Did you double check the numbers from the video yourself? Do you have another source besides this video?
Check this out...
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/05/the-misuse-of-our-gun-crime-stats/
He uses the same source as the video and also explains how the data from your source was manipulated. You are being lied to, NMN, and continuing the lie yourself.
Some notes on claims about Australia's crime rates
First note that gun ownership exhibits a very interesting pattern that isn't often acknowledged. There was a large gun buyback in 1996 and 1997 that reduced gun ownership from 3.2 to 2.2 million guns. But immediately after that gun ownership increased dramatically and is essentially back to where it was before the buyback. Why is that important? Well, if it is the number of guns that is important, you should initially see a large drop in suicides or crimes and then see it increasing. Yet, in none of these data series do you observe that pattern.
Rosenthal says: "Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings."
Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn't even track mass murder as a specific crime category. . . .
Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach "control groups" at Harvard?)
New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.
The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth -- including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.
While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed. . . .
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
Using your sources, list the number of homicides with guns per year in Australia as I have done above through 2012. You made a claim that they were up 19 percent. I say that is a lie or, if you have to be PC about it, a fib;)
homicides with guns
And that is why you fail. Remember, "accurate and honest" vs. "Cherry Picking".
So, that's a NO then on those numbers? Accusing me of the exact thing you are doing is seriously fucked up, dude. You completly fail at the standard your set for me and then don't have the balls to admit it.
Do you consider an example of a country that banned and thus decreased the number of guns in that country and then had a decrease in the number of murders with guns to be proof that less guns equal less deaths?
No. I'm simply stating that it is incorrect to assert that having very strict gun laws leads to more murder or a totalitarian state. Australia is proof of this.
And are they really banned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
And are they really banned?
No, but I needn't use a specific - banned was used as an absolute for hypothetical purposes.
assert that having very strict gun laws leads to more murder or a totalitarian state.
And who is asserting this? No one here.
Stating that restricting gun ownership prevents the citizens from effectively resisting tyranny does not equal saying that it will lead to tyranny. Also, countering an argument made that 'it can't happen here' with examples that the overwhelming majority of nations in history have devolved into tyranny does not mean to imply that restricting gun ownership will lead to tyranny.
Likewise, providing examples where the restriction of gun ownership did correlate to increased murder rates does not imply causation. But since the examples are usually provided to counter the claim that a restriction will decrease the murder rate, such examples are in rebuttal, not a claim that it will indeed occur.
I think there is quite a bit more to why homicide rates go up and down than simply the gun laws. You would probably know more about this than I would but aren't there countries that have plenty of guns, less restrictive laws, and somehow manage to not shoot each other as much as we do? Why is that?
I agree, there's a lot more to it than just the gun laws or the number of guns.
I you separate out murder rates of white people in the US you get a murder rate much closer to that you see in most of western Europe.
Poverty? Drugs? Culture? Something else? I don't know.
I think part of it might be what Charles Murray talks about....the breakdown of the family.
Do the rates on broken families, broken down racially, coincide with the rates of violence, crime and murder also broken down racially?
And would that also mean that our murder rate is due to easy divorce, child support, welfare and women's lib?
Looking at the actual data from the Australian government, not pro-gun control orgs/blogs, homicides in which firearms were used has been on a steady decline since the late 1970's, with the usual statistical outliers such as Port Arthur. The murder rate did in fact rise in 1999. Robbery rates (elsewhere at the site) in fact rose until 2007. Mark is right in that nothing like Port Arthur has happened since most Australian's gun rights were taken away, but nothing on that scale had happened before then, either. Moreover, mass killings have happened since Port Arthur, but with one exception have been arson. I know that makes Nikto happier, but it does nothing for me or most other people. Actually, I'd much rather be shot than burned alive.
Certainly the firearms ban did nothing to suicide rates. It just made the Nikto's of the world happier that fewer used firearms, but anyone with more than half a brain knows that anyone using a firearm to commit suicide isn't making a "cry for help", they want to die, and if firearms aren't readily available, they choose some other equally lethal means such as jumping off of high places.
Post a Comment