Violent crime still going down.

[Hermit]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/austra ... -shootings


The reference above describes the most successful new gun laws in recent years. In Australia. Violent crime went down. Homicides went down. Suicides went down. All because of a major reduction in gun ownership.

Actually, that is not what the article you linked to demonstrates, even though it wants you to think it does. Here is what it says in part: "crime—especially gun violence—has continued to drop in Australia. According to the Australian Institute of Criminality , homicides with a gun have dropped 60 percent from 1996 to 2010, while robberies with guns have dropped 35 percent. Suicides by guns dropped an astounding 74 percent." If you read it carefully, you'll notice that the only actual figures given are for violent acts involving guns. What it does not say, is that there is no change in the gradient in suicides, rapes and violent crimes generally in the three years following the introduction of the gun control laws compared to the three years preceding them. As for massacres, there were none between 1929 and 1970 either. In other words, the massive gun buy-back scheme was a waste of money. The available statistics do not support your claim - nor do they support Seth's opposite one - regarding the influence of gun ownership on crime.

[Blind groper]

Crimes and suicides with guns have gone down by a massive amount, and that means nothing?????

Wash out your cerebral lobes. They need an upgrade.

[Jason]

Wash out yours.

I've been saying the same thing whenever I bother to argue with you Groper. You consistently make the inane argument that removing x will reduce the number of crimes involving x. Well fucking duh. But what does it actually do for the number of crimes?

[Hermit]

Crimes and suicides with guns have gone down by a massive amount, and that means nothing?????

Wash out your cerebral lobes. They need an upgrade.

Suicides with guns have gone down 76%, but the incidence of suicide has continued on the same gradient in the three years after the the buyback scheme as in the three years before it. I leave it to you to work out what that means after you take a remedial course in comprehension, but I'll give you a hint: The rate of suicide by hanging and drug overdose went up to make up for the unavailability of firearms. Therefore the influence of gun control on the suicide rate was neutral, to put it politely.

[Blind groper]

Hermit

If I reduce the crimes with X, that makes a major difference. For example : imagine people are going around stabbing each other. I remove the knives so that they are now simply punching. Do you think that makes no difference?

Of if shootings go down and are replaced by stabbings? Remember that there is 1 death for each 4 shootings, but only 1 death for each 400 stabbings. So you think stopping the shootings so that only stabbings can occur will make no difference?

As I said, wash out your cerebral lobes.

[JimC]

Seth spoke of the idea that the critical piece of data is not the total number of guns, but whether they are in the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens, with the implication that a higher proportion in the hands of criminals will lead to more gun crime.

The situation in Australia will amply disprove that as a generalisation valid outside the US. Leaving aside the hand-guns legitimately used by police and military, there are relatively few hand-guns in Australia overall. Of those few, the overwhelming majority are in the hands of criminals (Often used as a threat in armed robberies, but typically only used to kill in a gang war against other criminals.) Very few non-criminals in Oz possess hand-guns. Yet our murder rate is a fraction of the US...

[Seth]

Seth spoke of the idea that the critical piece of data is not the total number of guns, but whether they are in the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens, with the implication that a higher proportion in the hands of criminals will lead to more gun crime.

The situation in Australia will amply disprove that as a generalisation valid outside the US. Leaving aside the hand-guns legitimately used by police and military, there are relatively few hand-guns in Australia overall. Of those few, the overwhelming majority are in the hands of criminals (Often used as a threat in armed robberies, but typically only used to kill in a gang war against other criminals.) Very few non-criminals in Oz possess hand-guns. Yet our murder rate is a fraction of the US...

Surprisingly you'll find that the majority of hand gun killings take place among gang members in the US as well and most other criminal uses are as a threat as well. This is the problem with making generalizations about crime, which in the US is disproportionately seen among minority youth in the inner cities, whereas in suburban and rural areas that comprise the huge majority of the landmass in the US, gun crime is actually quite rare indeed.

One could posit that banning guns in large metropolitan areas would therefore bring down the crime rate, but it doesn't, it actually makes it worse because, once again, the victims are denied the capacity to defend themselves.

And the fact that hundreds of millions of handguns exist in the US but only the smallest fraction of them are used in crimes puts paid to the notion that the number of guns in society is a controlling factor, particularly when you realize that, as your example proves, even complete bans on handguns fail to keep them out of the hands of determined criminals.

[Seth]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/austra ... -shootings


The reference above describes the most successful new gun laws in recent years. In Australia. Violent crime went down. Homicides went down. Suicides went down. All because of a major reduction in gun ownership.

Seth, the experiment has been done. Results very, very successful. Reduce gun ownership and reduce crime. Yes it happened.

Except that your theory doesn't pan out because your facts are wrong.

The problem is that you are still hung up on your own emotional obsession with guns. You cannot see past those emotions to see the reason behind. Guns are used to kill people. Reduce the number of guns and crime will not rise. In Australia, violent crime fell. Reduce gun ownership and there will be a lot more people continuing to live, who would otherwise be killed.

I dispute your premise:

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

[Hermit]

You're groping blindly for a riposte again, Blind groper. Look at the facts: The gradient of the slow decline in suicide and murder rates has not changed after the gun buyback scheme was implemented. If it was doing what it was intended to do, you'd expect a distinct, step-like discontinuity when graphing the results. There isn't one. People without guns just used other means to do what they wanted to do.

Yes, it sounds entirely plausible that the buyback scheme should result in a demonstrable steepness in the decline of suicides, murder and violent crimes generally, simply because firearms are so simple to use for killing, and so effective. Unfortunately for advocates of Howard's scheme, the statistics show that no such thing has happened, but feel free to keep arguing your position while turning a blind eye to the facts.

[Blind groper]

Hermit

You are ignoring the facts.

Before the gun control methods used in Australia, there were 13 mass shootings in 18 years. In the 14 years following, there were none. Zip. Zero. De Nada.

At the time of the gun control change, deaths from guns ran at 2.1 per 100,000 people per year. Afterwards, they dropped to 1.

Removing guns from people also removed guns from criminals, and deaths fall. It is estimated that the gun control regulations have saved up to 2,000 human lives, based on those killed each year by guns before and after.

A similar thing in the USA would save several orders of magnitude more lives.

To Seth.

Quoting right wing, redneck organisations is not terribly impressive. Find an authority that is reputable.

The NCPA is primarily funded by the gun loving Koch brothers, billionnaires who make $$$ from guns. You might as well quote the Catholic church as a source on why we should believe in the virgin Mary.

[Seth]

Hermit

You are ignoring the facts.

Before the gun control methods used in Australia, there were 13 mass shootings in 18 years. In the 14 years following, there were none. Zip. Zero. De Nada.

You're welcome....

This is a compositional fallacy. As the experts at the Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research admit, the ban created no significant impact on gun crime. You have not, and indeed cannot show a causal link between the ban and the lack of "mass shootings." You assume a correlation but without accounting for any of the many other factors which might have affected mass shootings.

At the time of the gun control change, deaths from guns ran at 2.1 per 100,000 people per year. Afterwards, they dropped to 1.

Again, correlation/causation fallacy. "The Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime."

Removing guns from people also removed guns from criminals, and deaths fall. It is estimated that the gun control regulations have saved up to 2,000 human lives, based on those killed each year by guns before and after.

You haven't proven that link. Worse, the experts in Australia directly debunk your claim, as demonstrated above.

A similar thing in the USA would save several orders of magnitude more lives.

Or cost more lives. You don't know because you mendaciously refuse to acknowledge that handguns are frequently used to prevent crime (more frequently by far than they are used to commit crimes according to some research) and you simply discard the jump in victimization and death caused by disarming law-abiding citizens. In Australia, the violent crime rate in Australia jumped by 42.2 percent after the ban. Your mendacity is demonstrated by the fact that you cherry pick your victim grouping in a desperate attempt to maximize your argument, but it doesn't wash. The issue is not restricted only to gun deaths caused by handguns, it's a much broader issue than that and you know it...but typically evade that part of the issue because acknowledging it destroys the support for your claims.

To Seth.

Quoting right wing, redneck organisations is not terribly impressive. Find an authority that is reputable.

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

The NCPA is primarily funded by the gun loving Koch brothers, billionnaires who make $$$ from guns. You might as well quote the Catholic church as a source on why we should believe in the virgin Mary.

More circumstantial ad hominem and a flat lie. Citations please.

Oh, and if you're going to ask someone about belief in the virgin Mary, the Catholic church is most certainly the appropriate first resort. Who are you gonna ask, the Jews?

[Hermit]

You are ignoring the facts.

Let's see now just who is ignoring facts.

Before the gun control methods used in Australia, there were 13 mass shootings in 18 years. In the 14 years following, there were none. Zip. Zero. De Nada.

Before the gun control methods used in Australia there was also a period of 41 years without a single mass shooting. Zip. Zero. De Nada. FACT

At the time of the gun control change, deaths from guns ran at 2.1 per 100,000 people per year. Afterwards, they dropped to 1.

Actually, you are quoting figures that include deaths by other means than guns, and even then the total homicide rate was only 1.7% in 1996, but never mind. A drop of 1.1 percentage points in 15 years is commendable if your figures were right. It looks pretty good until you look at figures in the years surrounding. the one in which the gun buyback scheme was implemented. In 1990 the homicide rate was 2%. It dropped to 1.7% by 1996 without any gun control measures whatsoever. By 2000 that rate steadily had risen to 1.89 despite gun control measures. In short, while we experienced a drop in homicide rates in the five years leading up to gun control, there was an actual increase in the four years that followed it. FACT. If there was any efficacy in Howard's scheme, you'd expect exactly the opposite trends, don't you think?

Removing guns from people also removed guns from criminals, and deaths fall. It is estimated that the gun control regulations have saved up to 2,000 human lives, based on those killed each year by guns before and after.

Purely ex recto, as I have just demonstrated. FACT.

A similar thing in the USA would save several orders of magnitude more lives.

Assuming the assertions you keep pulling out of your arse did not contradict actual matters of fact, certainly. FACT.

[Blind groper]

To Seth ( and any other people who might have an open and intelligent mind)

When you quote an authority for support of an opinion, it helps to make sure the authority quoted is impartial. That is why I like to use organisations such as the New England Journal of Medicine, or Harvard University.

When someone quotes an authority that clearly has personal interest at stake, the credibility drops to zero.

That is why John Lott is not an acceptable source. He wrote several books following the NRA stance, and got their nod of approval, meaning millions of books sold. Lott made many millions of dollars telling people that more guns means less crime. The $$$$ means his opinions are non credible. Incredible?

The NPCA, Cato Institute, and the NRA are all supported to the tune of mega millions of dollars by the gun manufacturing industry. Naturally when they say anything about gun control, it is to follow the gun makers credo. Their opinions are worthless.

But independent organisations, and independent universities are clear cut in their message. More guns means more people killed.

[Blind groper]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UTwqkl8BqS ... Twqkl8BqSc

I do not really expect too many people to watch the video referenced above. It is about the Koch brothers, who are major supporters of preventing gun control. They are mega billionnaires, who make lots of money from guns. It goes further, of course. They support with money a number of organisations, much beloved of Seth, which are designed to lobby for legislation to help the 1% richest at the cost to the 99% less rich. For example, they have a campaign to raise entitlement for pensions to 70 years of age. This means less tax spent, meaning the Koch brothers pay less tax.

They are up to their necks in supporting 'gun freedom' regardless of the cost to human homicide rates. This is to make more money. These are the people behind Seth's policies.

[Seth]

To Seth ( and any other people who might have an open and intelligent mind)

When you quote an authority for support of an opinion, it helps to make sure the authority quoted is impartial. That is why I like to use organisations such as the New England Journal of Medicine, or Harvard University.

And you really think the NEJM and the pundits at Harvard are "impartial?"

When someone quotes an authority that clearly has personal interest at stake, the credibility drops to zero.

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

That is why John Lott is not an acceptable source. He wrote several books following the NRA stance, and got their nod of approval, meaning millions of books sold. Lott made many millions of dollars telling people that more guns means less crime. The $$$$ means his opinions are non credible. Incredible?

Except that neither you nor your pet Harvard flacks were able to show that Lott's research was wrong.

The NPCA, Cato Institute, and the NRA are all supported to the tune of mega millions of dollars by the gun manufacturing industry. Naturally when they say anything about gun control, it is to follow the gun makers credo. Their opinions are worthless.

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

But independent organisations, and independent universities are clear cut in their message.

Yes, their liberal hysterical hoplophobic anti-gun message unsupported by the facts.

More guns means more people killed.

And that's a good thing when it's the bad guys who get killed rather than the honest citizens. But you routinely ignore that aspect of the argument, which makes you somewhat less than impartial, which by your own metric makes your opinions "worthless."