DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR
The time line between 2008-2010 is actually quite irrelevant for crime statistics in general for the context presented here. Why? Because there are far too many socio-economic factors involved in that same time period. Basically the global economic collapse which impacted everyone, causing a general increase in crime globally. Until that is filtered thru the statistics it doesn't mean much.
The relevant part of that quote is:
"Overall, firearm involvement and in particular the involvement of handguns in homicide incidents, remains at an historical low."
If there was a valid argument that restrictions on gun laws lead to higher rates of murder, then one would expect the murder rate to have risen and remain high since the gun laws were changed in 1997. Instead we see rates of murder involving firearms "at an historical low" - the opposite of what might be expected if the claim is valid.
Therefore this evidence counts against the argument that the Australian experience shows restrictions on gun laws lead to higher rates of murder involving firearms.
Actually, if the claim was that restricting guns would lead to higher murder rates, the historic lows of murder involving a firearm isn't proof counter to that claim. If the entire murder is unchanged, all that has been done is to change the weapon used, not change the occurrence of the act.
Each category (as shown in my first post's graphic) has stayed the same, except assaults, which have risen. Whether or not that's been because of the 1996 ban or not can (and probably will) be debated.
From your NHMP link:quote:
While gun related homicide has dropped to an historic low of 13%, the proportion of people dying through stab wounds has increased from 30% to 41% over the last 10 years
From my link (which shows the graphic):quote:
The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).
Here is clear evidence that the murder rate has dropped from 1.9/100k to 1.3/100k. Depending on the population growth the raw number of murders may have risen, while the overall rate has dropped.
But to say there wasn't an increase in overall violent crime after the 1996 ban is wrong. From the OP:quote:
During a recent thread on guns and crime, it emerged that there is a widespread perception in the US that Australian violent crime levels rocketed after the gun buy-back in the 90s. While this perception has no basis in fact, people clung to it tenaciously and were even able to post a few statistics that they claimed supported their case.
Violent crime levels may not have skyrocketed, but they did rise. It wasn't every category, but overall, I think it may be hard to make people believe there wasn't a rise in violent crime post 1996. And, I am not assigning any cause to that rise.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread