Reply With Quote
You say tradeoff as if gun control was the direct reason for this e? I don't know how you come to that conclusion.
But you accept that strict gun control has resulted in less homicides and less gun murders?
see above
You say tradeoff as if gun control was the direct reason for this e? I don't know how you come to that conclusion.
But you accept that strict gun control has resulted in less homicides and less gun murders?
Australia has very high Rape and burglary recorded offences. I am not sure why that is, and I do not believe it is related to gun control. I am not sure how many of those recorded offences resulted in a charge or conviction of a offender. Maybe Australians are more likely to report a crime than other countries? I just don't know. But I don't see the connection with gun control.
What happens to cause the rates to go down?
Do they get more guns that year?
If we can't say gun control was the reason for the e in assault/sexual assault/robbery we can not say gun control has resulted in less gun homicides either. Gun crime was on a steady decline before the 1996 ban.
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.
Does that seem like a steady decline to you?
All gun crime was on the decline prior to 1996.
You did not answer my question.
We can assert that gun control has resulted in less gun homicides, as there are stats and figures to prove it. Whereas there's no facts that suggest there is a direct link between increased gun controls and the increase of other types of crime beside homicides, that's nothing more than a hypothesis.
I'm sure you'll have the stats and figures to prove your assertion. In the meantime some stats and figures...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2122854
“The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.“
more stats and figures...
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/bake...ol10issue1.pdf
“Studies on Australia’s firearms legislation, using different time series and different statistical methodologies, have produced consistent results. In light of this, it appears reasonable to conclude that on the basis of available research there is no evidence for an impact of the NFA [Australia’s gun control legislation] on firearm homicides…
Although the total number of published peer-reviewed studies based on time series data remains relatively small (fewer than 15 studies, at the time of writing), none of these studies has found a significant impact of the Australian legislative changes on the pre-existing downward trend in firearm homicide.“
lol "open" "scholarly" publishing.
Just the fact you had to dig that deep says all I need to know.
assuming that chart is absolute numbers and not per capita, they look like totals to me-
australia's population has increased by about 20% since 96, Im not going to run the numbers because there is probably a specific way to do it but clearly you can see that relative to population size murder and robbery are way down, assault is about the same maybe a tad less, and sexual assault and kidnapping a little up. The net reduction in all crimes is significant.
Guns will always exist, they cant be written off the planet. But it makes a big difference when they are difficult to obtain. I dont think its about making it expensive, I think its about making it demanding in knowledge and discipline and requiring hoops and hurdles, periodic tests, even random gun inspection (ie, you are a registered gun owner and at any point officials can come and ask you to show them your gun, how you are keeping it, demonstrate proficiency/knowledge). Maybe it doesnt even have to be that intrusive, but something along those lines will instantly weed out the dumbasses from the responsible gun owners, who love their guns enough to learn the new rules- being rich doesnt exempt you from being a dumbass. and yes it counts for criminals too, because if they can reduce the amount of available weapons criminals will have a much harder time obtaining expensive black market guns, and the criminals who have those guns will also have to be more careful with them because they wont be as easy to replace if lost.
Im curious about these supposed cases of extremely well armed robbers busting in to average joe's homes to steal kill and rape. Does this actually happen anywhere? oh right, like this . Doesnt seem like a good reason to get an ar-15
two "studies" attributed to the same two people who just happen to be members of "International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), Australia". Gee, I wonder if there was any predisposition to their findings? ing idiot.
I was thinking the same. Geez
What is your problem with women in science, you white cis-male misogynist lord?
This Is How the Paranoid Right Keeps America Armed to the Teeth: The Lies and Distortions They Use After Every Massacre
1. Christopher Harper-Mercer’s murder spree will be presented as part of a “War on Christians.” While the vast majority of social, political, and economic power in the United States is held by those who iden y as “Christian,” somehow there is a “war” on them. Moreover, the Republican Party’s candidates, almost to the one, are Christian theocrats who believe that the United States ought to be ruled by “Christian principles.” Muslims and atheists are two of the most disliked groups according to recent public opinion polls in the United States. Yet, “Christians” can somehow imagine themselves as “victims” in America.
2. Christopher Harper-Mercer is a self-identified “conservative.” The right-wing media will of course deny his statement of political agency and identification. In that move, Christopher Harper-Mercer will be transformed into a “liberal” or “progressive.”
3. Christopher Harper-Mercer is a right-wing mass shooter and domestic terrorist. His behavior is part of a broader pattern where right-wing domestic terrorists have been identified as the biggest threats to the American “homeland” in the post-9/11 era. This fact is inconvenient for the American right. It must be twisted into something else for their worldview to remain internally consistent.
4. Unlike “Muslim terrorists,” Christopher Harper-Mercer will likely be identified as some type of “lone wolf” with “mental health issues” or who is on “drugs.” There will likely be no soul searching about the right-wing reactionary online and other media that helped to motivate Christopher Harper-Mercer to kill nine people.
5. Gun violence is a public health crisis. The United States leads the “developed world” in mass shootings and gun violence. Yet, this event will be twisted by ammosexuals and the National Rifle Association as an example of how it is actually more, and not fewer guns in schools, colleges, and universities, that will deter mass shootings. This is Orwellian Newspeak logic mixed with 1980s hyper-masculine action movie dreams. In an example of twisted and backwards thinking, somehow more firearms are imagined to be a cure for gun violence and mass shooting events, as opposed to removing firearms from circulation.
6. The Umpqua Community College shooting is a “false flag” operation. right-wing conspiracy websites almost automatically default to fantastical explanations for gun violence and murder when Occam’s razor will suffice. No elaborate explanations are needed: a heavily armed person with a grievance of some sort, and who was armed with multiple guns, decided to commit an act of mass murder. The facts are not that complicated.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-an...er1043561&t=14
This troll has potential, Melody
In depth rebuttal
In depth rebuttal
In depth rebuttalI was thinking the same. Geez
Any other 'studies' to 'prove' a direct correlation between gun laws and increases in assault and robbery?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...-in-australia/
Links to the in depth rebuttal pdfs are in the article.
She didn't stay at the U of Sydney much longer FYI.
And you never answered this question:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...er-a-massacre/
"firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."
Last edited by Blizzardwizard; 10-06-2015 at 12:06 PM.
I've presented the numbers showing a decline in gun homicides that was trending down before the 1996 ban in Australia. The same decline was trending down in New Zealand as well and they enacted no ban.
.. but not with the dramatic drops after the legislation and buyback
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions