Vigilante

[Blind groper]

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/le ... rting-rape

Seth

The above reference is from a rape crisis centre in the USA. It says that about half of rape victims make a rape report to the police, and that this figure has risen in recent years.

This is exactly what I said. Reports of crime have been rising, rather than crime itself.

I will post more evidence when I have more time.

[Hermit]

...murders are unambiguous. You have a dead body or you don't.

True. It is also true that since the buyback scheme has been implemented, the incidence of homicides by firearm has demonstrably and significantly fallen, but that by no means indicates that gun control in Australia achieved its intended purpose. For that you'd need statistics showing that homicide rates in the years immediately preceding the buyback scheme were significantly higher than in the immediately following ones.

To find out if this is the case, you could turn to data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, another government owned, tax payer funded body. Try this link go to page 15 and peruse the table Victims by Offence Category, rate per 100,000. It covers the years 1993 to 2001, wich places the gun buyback scheme almost slap bang in the middle. Now add up the murder and manslaughter rates. That gives you the total homicide rate for each year. Maximum and minimum rates for the years 1993 to 1996 are 2.0 and 1.8 respectively, precisely the same as for the years 1997 to 2001. So, no, there is no statistical evidence at all that the gun control legislation and associated buyback scheme did what it was intended to do.

A significant and sustained lower level in homicides did not occur until 2004. I do not think you are going to attempt to argue that the effects of the late 1966 buyback program merely took a while coming. So the only data you admit to be a credible indicator of trends in violent crime, those concerning homicides, lend not even a hint of support to the assertion that gun control (in Australia at least - I don't have figures for other nations, nor do I know how to come by them) has lowered the homicide rate.

[Hermit]

This is the worst example of pettifogging mendacious bloviating I've seen recently. What Hermit provided were charts directly from the Australian government comparing apples to apples over time that disproves your claim. Now you're trying to convince us that this increase is due to increased reporting and not an increase in crime.

While I have no statistics to back it up with, I must defend Blind Groper. There is no doubt that there is a lot more wiggle room for numbers concerning rape than for homicides. To start with, what constitutes rape has expanded considerably. Not that many decades ago, for example, there was no such thing as rape within marriage. Some time later Australian legislatures recognised that rapes are not limited to penile penetration of vagina and anus. Later still, they dropped the concept of rape altogether and replaced it with that of sexual assault. While we in Australia are not yet in a "that would be rape in Sweden" situation, one can be charged with sexual assault if one touched another person by any method other than a polite handshake if that person has made it clear, implicitly or explicitly, that touching is not welcome. I was not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

If you add to that the very real possibility that sexual assault victims are not nearly as tolerant of sexual transgressions, that recent generations are more assertive regarding their rights, that judges and juries are less likely to make excuses for the offender and less likely to blame the victim than they used to be, which makes a prosecution more likely, which in turn causes less discouragement for a victim to report the offence in the first place, and it is obvious to see that there is considerably more plasticity in sexual assault figures than those relating to homicides.

[Blind groper]

To Hermit

Thank you for those words of support. They show that you are, in fact, an honest debater.

You are totally correct in your comments on sex crimes, which have grown in terms of numbers reported, but probably not in terms of crimes committed.

On Australia.
Gun homicides have dropped. But as I pointed out, the most dramatic change has been in mass shootings. Since the Port Arthur massacre kicked the whole thing off, we must take this as the primary goal of the tighter gun controls, and they have been a raging success. No mass shootings in 14 years. Pretty good when there were 13 in 18 years before that.

Nor can the lack of mass shootings in the more distant past be taken as significant. As I pointed out, the prevalence of mass shootings appears to be a case of a lot of copy cat killings due to high levels of publicity, especially on TV. Go back to the time before Australia's 13 mass shootings, and the TV stimulus was not there. However, it is definitely still there after the gun control was enacted, which removes lack of publicity as a cause, leaving the gun control measures as the reason for the big drop in mass shootings.

[Hermit]

Gun homicides have dropped.

Yes already. You have mentioned that many times now, and I have agreed with it just as often. So what? The critical question is: Has the gun control legislation and accompanying buyback scheme reduced the rate of homicides? As you may possibly have noticed at last, there is no evidence whatsoever for it.

Nor can the lack of mass shootings in the more distant past be taken as significant. As I pointed out, the prevalence of mass shootings appears to be a case of a lot of copy cat killings due to high levels of publicity, especially on TV. Go back to the time before Australia's 13 mass shootings, and the TV stimulus was not there. However, it is definitely still there after the gun control was enacted, which removes lack of publicity as a cause, leaving the gun control measures as the reason for the big drop in mass shootings.

I daresay that you'll find it impossible to back up the part I bolded with positive evidence that the perpetrators of those massacres thought something like: "Oh, look at that! A massacre. Many carnage. So blood bath. Wow! I have access to firearms, so I will commit one too. Such enjoy."

Excuse me for introducing the doge meme, but your totally baseless assertion deserves all the ridicule that can be mustered.

[Blind groper]

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archi ... ow/266439/

Hermit

You are probably correct in that would be hard to back up, though the reference above ,written by a sociologist is a good start.

The suggestion that mass killers are inspired by TV was never my idea. It has appeared in numerous news items, in which the perpetrator of a massacre survived, and under questioning said that he was so inspired.

Remember that we are not talking of 'normal' people here. These are nut cases with weird ways of thinking. It is entirely likely that the motive ascribed is correct, and they see themselves becoming famous after killing lots of people.

The reference above discusses mass killers being inspired by TV.

[Hermit]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/s ... ion-577337

You are probably correct in that would be hard to back up. However, it is not my idea. This appeared in several news items, in which the perpetrator of a massacre survived, and under questioning said that he was so inspired.

Remember that we are not talking of 'normal' people here. These are nut cases with weird ways of thinking. It is entirely likely that the motive ascribed is correct, and they see themselves becoming famous after killing lots of people.

The reference above discusses mass killers being inspired by TV.

Yes, the article by that august conveyor of substantial, rigorous research, The Hollywood Reporter, concerning an "analysis" by an unnamed source is truly convincing, and it is a well known fact that Charles Manson's murder spree was "inspired" by a Beatles song.

It cannot be said that deranged people's "inspiration" to commit crimes needs television or any other form of the mass media, and as for the desire to become famous for them, the first recorded case of that occurred 2300 years before TV was even invented.

Do me a favour, Blind Groper; Stop producing posts that threaten to enter the realm of utter incoherence.

[Seth]

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/le ... rting-rape

Seth

The above reference is from a rape crisis centre in the USA. It says that about half of rape victims make a rape report to the police, and that this figure has risen in recent years.

This is exactly what I said. Reports of crime have been rising, rather than crime itself.

I will post more evidence when I have more time.

Yeah, good luck with that. Rape is in a different category than other violent crime, and while underreporting of crime will always occur an increase in reporting is highly unlikely to be responsible for the facts on the ground in Australia. After all, violent crime is going down in the US and has been for decades even in spite of increases in reporting, which would merely amplify the drop in crime rates if true.

On the other hand violent crime in Australia went UP, not down so even if I accepted your premise (which I don't) that would mean that crime did not decline in Australia after the gun ban, at best it stayed steady with the increase being attributed to increased reporting, which would again debunk the notion that gun control reduces crime rates. Of course your desperate ploy is just an ex recto assertion of desperation from you so it's really not worth talking about.

[Blind groper]

Hermit

Take a second look. I replaced the Hollywood reference with one written by a sociologist. You missed the edit.

In fact, when I did my google search, I found dozens of references, and could have used a wide variety. The idea that mass killers are inspired by TV is rather well supported by their own statements. Before the impact of TV, Australia had few mass shootings. Then they had 13 in 18 years. Then they had stringent gun control followed by no mass shootings for the following 14 years.

Strict gun control has good results.

[Blind groper]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Australia

Further to gun deaths in Australia - suicide.

Suicide rates peaked in 1997, and then fell. The number of gun suicides dropped dramatically, and overall suicides fell substantially. This does not prove it was removal of guns from society that was the cause, but it makes sense, especially considering the timing.

[Hermit]

Take a second look. I replaced the Hollywood reference with one written by a sociologist. You missed the edit.

In fact, when I did my google search, I found dozens of references, and could have used a wide variety. The idea that mass killers are inspired by TV is rather well supported by their own statements. Before the impact of TV, Australia had few mass shootings. Then they had 13 in 18 years. Then they had stringent gun control followed by no mass shootings for the following 14 years.

Strict gun control has good results.

Yes, that article is better. Still, the Australian massacres cannot be sheeted home to media coverage in general or television reportage in particular. As I've already mentioned, the first reported crime for which the motive was to become famous by committing it pre-dates television by 2300 years. (As an aside, there is an irony in that story. When Herostratus was condemned to death, the judges also decreed that anyone who mentions his name will also be put to death. This of course was meant to thwart the fulfilment of the criminal's desire to be known by name forever, but without the record of that decree his name would have been lost a long time ago. It appears in no surviving document other than that decree.)

Please note that the article in your new link is not at all certain about its hypothesis: "guidelines could help prevent more shooting sprees."...detailed and sensationalist reporting of the killer's steps just before and during the shootings -- may be creating a vicious cycle of copycat effects..." "delaying the release of information may greatly reduce the spectacle effect."

The use of weasel words is well advised; the article consists entirely of speculation, surmises and musings that look plausible. It is a fact-free zone, which makes it inadequate, to put it mildly, for the purposes of supporting your claim that "the prevalence of mass shootings appears to be a case of a lot of copy cat killings due to high levels of publicity, especially on TV." (Oh, and look. More weasel words.)

Your claim is cart before horse stuff. You may as well propose that daylight causes the sun to rise over the horizon. It's entirely plausible. After all, when did the sun ever do that in the absence of daylight?

[Seth]

Take a second look. I replaced the Hollywood reference with one written by a sociologist. You missed the edit.

In fact, when I did my google search, I found dozens of references, and could have used a wide variety. The idea that mass killers are inspired by TV is rather well supported by their own statements. Before the impact of TV, Australia had few mass shootings. Then they had 13 in 18 years. Then they had stringent gun control followed by no mass shootings for the following 14 years.

Strict gun control has good results.

Yes, that article is better. Still, the Australian massacres cannot be sheeted home to media coverage in general or television reportage in particular. As I've already mentioned, the first reported crime for which the motive was to become famous by committing it pre-dates television by 2300 years. (As an aside, there is an irony in that story. When Herostratus was condemned to death, the judges also decreed that anyone who mentions his name will also be put to death. This of course was meant to thwart the fulfilment of the criminal's desire to be known by name forever, but without the record of that decree his name would have been lost a long time ago. It appears in no surviving document other than that decree.)

Please note that the article in your new link is not at all certain about its hypothesis: "guidelines could help prevent more shooting sprees."...detailed and sensationalist reporting of the killer's steps just before and during the shootings -- may be creating a vicious cycle of copycat effects..." "delaying the release of information may greatly reduce the spectacle effect."

The use of weasel words is well advised; the article consists entirely of speculation, surmises and musings that look plausible. It is a fact-free zone, which makes it inadequate, to put it mildly, for the purposes of supporting your claim that "the prevalence of mass shootings appears to be a case of a lot of copy cat killings due to high levels of publicity, especially on TV." (Oh, and look. More weasel words.)

Your claim is cart before horse stuff. You may as well propose that daylight causes the sun to rise over the horizon. It's entirely plausible. After all, when did the sun ever do that in the absence of daylight?

And completely ignored by BG is the simple fact that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and that when the public is disarmed by government policy, there's no one present in the moment to even try to put a stop to the killing, as was the case in the Port Arthur shootings, where it took something like six HOURS for an armed response squad to show up. There is also substantial empirical evidence that mass shooters seek out venues where firearms are prohibited to patrons...like schools, movie theaters (no gun policy in Aurora), shopping malls (pretty much all of them prohibit concealed carry) and churches...except for the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, where an armed citizen (Jeanne Assam) working as a volunteer security guard, along with another armed civilian, prevented a heavily-armed mass killer from gaining access to the church where more than a thousand people were worshiping at the time. And then there's the sterling response of the Arapaho County Sheriff's Department school resource officer Deputy James Englert, who responded as trained to an active shooter and, by all accounts, prevented the shooter from killing more than one person through an immediate aggressive tactical response that caused the incident to come to an end within 80 seconds. Had he not been there, there's no telling how long the killing would have gone on because the shooter (who shall remain nameless) had more than a hundred rounds of shotgun ammunition and gasoline bombs in his possession when he shot himself. In the deputy's absence however, an armed parent or teacher could have produced the same quick end to the shooting spree.

But not under BG's agenda. No, he would rather leave all schoolchildren as helpless targets just to realize his impossible goal of disarming everyone.

[Hermit]

And completely ignored by BG is the simple fact that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and that when the public is disarmed by government policy, there's no one present in the moment to even try to put a stop to the killing, as was the case in the Port Arthur shootings, where it took something like six HOURS for an armed response squad to show up. There is also substantial empirical evidence that mass shooters seek out venues where firearms are prohibited to patrons...like schools, movie theaters (no gun policy in Aurora), shopping malls (pretty much all of them prohibit concealed carry) and churches...except for the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, where an armed citizen (Jeanne Assam) working as a volunteer security guard, along with another armed civilian, prevented a heavily-armed mass killer from gaining access to the church where more than a thousand people were worshiping at the time. And then there's the sterling response of the Arapaho County Sheriff's Department school resource officer Deputy James Englert, who responded as trained to an active shooter and, by all accounts, prevented the shooter from killing more than one person through an immediate aggressive tactical response that caused the incident to come to an end within 80 seconds. Had he not been there, there's no telling how long the killing would have gone on because the shooter (who shall remain nameless) had more than a hundred rounds of shotgun ammunition and gasoline bombs in his possession when he shot himself. In the deputy's absence however, an armed parent or teacher could have produced the same quick end to the shooting spree.

But not under BG's agenda. No, he would rather leave all schoolchildren as helpless targets just to realize his impossible goal of disarming everyone.

Did you notice an upturn in massacres, murders and manslaughters in Australia since the 1996 gun control legislation and accompanying gun buy-back scheme that nobody else has? If so, would you please point us in the direction of any evidence for it? If you can't do that, STFU already.

[JimC]

Much of this whole debate is comparing apples to oranges. Seth talks about "disarming", so he is referring to the current US situation. We were never "armed"...

Australia has never had a serious hand-gun culture among private citizens, and very few are in circulation. We don't want to alter that, we are perfectly happy with a very low level of hand-gun crime. The restrictions after Port Arthur had nothing to do with hand-guns - they were already severely restricted...

It may well be the case that the US gun culture simply cannot be changed, and/or if more restrictions were imposed, it could actually increase the rate of gun crime. The US has made its bed, and perforce must lie in it...

[Hermit]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Australia

Further to gun deaths in Australia - suicide.

Suicide rates peaked in 1997, and then fell. The number of gun suicides dropped dramatically, and overall suicides fell substantially. This does not prove it was removal of guns from society that was the cause, but it makes sense, especially considering the timing.

Are you implying that the fall in suicide rates is attributable to gun control? If so, a closer look at the statistics proves your claim wrong. To be sure, suicide rates have dropped in recent years, but in 1997, 1998 and 1999 they were higher than in 1996, the year gun control and the accompanying gun buyback scheme were implemented. The implementation was done and dusted well before the end of 1997, so how come suicide rates remained higher than those pertaining to the pre-National Arms Agreement years from 1992 to 1995 as well as the year the scheme was introduced? And are you going to have the temerity to argue that it took more than two years at least for the effects of a lack of firearms on the suicide rate to show up? Slow bullets indeed.

Here is an extract of the data provided by the Australian Parliament's Statistics and Mapping Section's report on suicide. It's from a table in the appendix on page 19. Second column is total suicide deaths per 100,000 of population.

1992 13.1
1993 11.8
1994 12.6
1995 13.1
1996 13.1
1997 14.7
1998 14.3
1999 13.2

You can verify that I'm not bullshitting you by clicking on this link.