Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tweakabelle -> Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 4:01:57 AM)

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.

This report analyses some of the myths circulating in the US about Australian crime figures. It also points out the dangers of making 'cause-and-effect' claims based on a small number of statistics and warns about the dangers of trying to use the Australian figures in the US context.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

A far more comprehensive Australian Insitute of Criminology analysis, covering the period 2008-10 reports:
"During the period 2008–09 to 2009–10, approximately one in 10 (n=65; 13%) homicide incidents involved the use of a firearm; of these, only 14 percent involved a handgun. The majority of all firearms used in homicide incidents were reported by the police as unregistered and/or unlicensed. Overall, firearm involvement and in particular the involvement of handguns in homicide incidents, remains at an historical low." (emphasis added)
http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21.html

These reports suggest that many of the 'facts' circulated by US gun enthusiasts about the Australian experience are false, and not particularly relevant to the US experience of gun crime.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 4:41:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
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.
This report analyses some of the myths circulating in the US about Australian crime figures. It also points out the dangers of making 'cause-and-effect' claims based on a small number of statistics and warns about the dangers of trying to use the Australian figures in the US context.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
A far more comprehensive Australian Insitute of Criminology analysis, covering the period 2008-10 reports:
"During the period 2008–09 to 2009–10, approximately one in 10 (n=65; 13%) homicide incidents involved the use of a firearm; of these, only 14 percent involved a handgun. The majority of all firearms used in homicide incidents were reported by the police as unregistered and/or unlicensed. Overall, firearm involvement and in particular the involvement of handguns in homicide incidents, remains at an historical low." (emphasis added)
http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21.html
These reports suggest that many of the 'facts' circulated by US gun enthusiasts about the Australian experience are false, and not particularly relevant to the US experience of gun crime.


So, you're using the reduction of gun homicides to prove that violent crime didn't increase?!?

Wouldn't it have been better to use this link?

[image]http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2008/fig003.png[/image]

According to this graph, it sure looks like assaults are the only things rising, going up by roughly 200/100,000 persons over the 11 years shown. The other 4 categories are essentially the same in 2007 as they were in 1996. So, you have seen an increase of violent crimes in Australia since the 1996 ban, no? Whether or not it's due to the ban, I have no idea, so I'm not going to claim it is.

I'll keep looking on that site, though. Want to see those same categories starting at 1989 or earlier.



thishereboi -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 7:12:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

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.



Do you have any idea how many people there are in the US compared to the amount of people posting on cm? And yet you still feel that a few comments on a thread here will tell you how the rest of the country is feeling?

You are correct, that perception has no basis in fact [8|]



Owner59 -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 11:12:30 AM)

And how is CM, NOT a slice of America?


[8|]





Hillwilliam -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 11:43:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

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.

This report analyses some of the myths circulating in the US about Australian crime figures. It also points out the dangers of making 'cause-and-effect' claims based on a small number of statistics and warns about the dangers of trying to use the Australian figures in the US context.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

A far more comprehensive Australian Insitute of Criminology analysis, covering the period 2008-10 reports:
"During the period 2008–09 to 2009–10, approximately one in 10 (n=65; 13%) homicide incidents involved the use of a firearm; of these, only 14 percent involved a handgun. The majority of all firearms used in homicide incidents were reported by the police as unregistered and/or unlicensed. Overall, firearm involvement and in particular the involvement of handguns in homicide incidents, remains at an historical low." (emphasis added)
http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21.html

These reports suggest that many of the 'facts' circulated by US gun enthusiasts about the Australian experience are false, and not particularly relevant to the US experience of gun crime.

OK, gun related homicides are down.
That still doesn't change the fact that total violent crime is up.



Yachtie -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 12:10:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

And how is CM, NOT a slice of America?


[8|]




Oh, we're a slice[8D] That's for damn sure[;)]



Kirata -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 1:42:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

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.

That was me who made up that "no basis in fact" claim. Here it is again:

[image]http://www.collarchat.com/upfiles/235229/9881B7367B5A41F29B177DD4145AE83B.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.collarchat.com/upfiles/235229/C436296794474F728264CA809EF4DA94.jpg[/image]

Source: Australian Institute of Criminology: Violent Crime

You were saying?

K.



Nosathro -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 4:04:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

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.

This report analyses some of the myths circulating in the US about Australian crime figures. It also points out the dangers of making 'cause-and-effect' claims based on a small number of statistics and warns about the dangers of trying to use the Australian figures in the US context.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

A far more comprehensive Australian Insitute of Criminology analysis, covering the period 2008-10 reports:
"During the period 2008–09 to 2009–10, approximately one in 10 (n=65; 13%) homicide incidents involved the use of a firearm; of these, only 14 percent involved a handgun. The majority of all firearms used in homicide incidents were reported by the police as unregistered and/or unlicensed. Overall, firearm involvement and in particular the involvement of handguns in homicide incidents, remains at an historical low." (emphasis added)
http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21.html

These reports suggest that many of the 'facts' circulated by US gun enthusiasts about the Australian experience are false, and not particularly relevant to the US experience of gun crime.

OK, gun related homicides are down.
That still doesn't change the fact that total violent crime is up.



Really from Australian Bureau of Statistics

Table 13.4 shows a significant decrease in victimisation rates from 2008–09 to 2009–10 for the person offences of threatened assault (4.2% in 2008–09 to 3.4% in 2009–10) and robbery (0.6% in 2008–09 to 0.4% in 2009–10). Approximately half (51%) of all incidents of physical assault and a third (37%) of all incidents of sexual assault were reported to the police in 2009–10. Robbery had the highest reporting rate of the personal crimes at 61%, a significant increase on the previous year (39%).

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~National%20crime%20statistics~63



Nosathro -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 4:12:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

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.

That was me who made up that "no basis in fact" claim. Here it is again:

[image]http://www.collarchat.com/upfiles/235229/9881B7367B5A41F29B177DD4145AE83B.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.collarchat.com/upfiles/235229/C436296794474F728264CA809EF4DA94.jpg[/image]

Source: Australian Institute of Criminology: Violent Crime

You were saying?

K.


Now let's try 2012

Of the five categories of violent crime, four recorded a drop in the number of victims between 2009 and 2010 – homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery;
The number of victims of robbery in 2010 is the lowest on record since 1996, with 14,582 victims. Robbery victim numbers peaked in 2001 with 26,591 victims;
The number of victims of kidnappings/abductions increased between 2009 and 2010 by 39 people but represents a 23 per cent decrease since a peak in 2008;
Since 1996, assault has been the category of violent crime with the greatest number of victims annually. In 2010, 171,083 people were the victim of assault in Australia;
Sexual assault victim numbers have been decreasing since 2008, by approximately four percent per year

There is more

http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2012/First%20quarter/4-March-2012---Crime-falling-across-Australia.aspx



MasterG2kTR -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 5:50:40 PM)

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.



GotSteel -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/9/2013 8:26:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
And how is CM, NOT a slice of America?


[8|]


Boi seems to be making a point about the unreliability of anecdotal evidence.



Powergamz1 -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 4:39:14 AM)

Fallacy. Middle. Excluded.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

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.

This report analyses some of the myths circulating in the US about Australian crime figures. It also points out the dangers of making 'cause-and-effect' claims based on a small number of statistics and warns about the dangers of trying to use the Australian figures in the US context.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

A far more comprehensive Australian Insitute of Criminology analysis, covering the period 2008-10 reports:
"During the period 2008–09 to 2009–10, approximately one in 10 (n=65; 13%) homicide incidents involved the use of a firearm; of these, only 14 percent involved a handgun. The majority of all firearms used in homicide incidents were reported by the police as unregistered and/or unlicensed. Overall, firearm involvement and in particular the involvement of handguns in homicide incidents, remains at an historical low." (emphasis added)
http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21.html

These reports suggest that many of the 'facts' circulated by US gun enthusiasts about the Australian experience are false, and not particularly relevant to the US experience of gun crime.




tweakabelle -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 7:22:37 AM)


Thanks DS for posting that graph.

I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to research this matter. I hope that all of us can live up to the standard you have set. It would make for far better, more informed discussions whatever the topic.

With regard to assault levels, on a previous thread, I speculated that changes in licensing laws which allowed 24 hour trading in pubs were a far more probable cause (IMHO) of the rise in assaults. Licensing laws regulate the times when pubs are open. The notion that assault levels increased due to restrictions on gun laws is laughable. To my knowledge, no one in Australia has ever proposed this fanciful notion and anyone familiar with Australia would find the entire idea ridiculous.

Currently, there is a public discussion here about reducing the levels of assaults. This discussion is focused almost entirely on alcohol consumption and licensing laws, and just about everyone accepts that there is a pretty close relationship between alcohol consumption and assaults. Guns laws do not even rate a mention in this discussion. To put it bluntly, in Australia, the relationship between gun laws and current levels of assault is one of complete and utter irrelevance.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 8:03:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Thanks DS for posting that graph.
I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to research this matter. I hope that all of us can live up to the standard you have set. It would make for far better, more informed discussions whatever the topic.
With regard to assault levels, on a previous thread, I speculated that changes in licensing laws which allowed 24 hour trading in pubs were a far more probable cause (IMHO) of the rise in assaults. Licensing laws regulate the times when pubs are open. The notion that assault levels increased due to restrictions on gun laws is laughable. To my knowledge, no one in Australia has ever proposed this fanciful notion and anyone familiar with Australia would find the entire idea ridiculous.
Currently, there is a public discussion here about reducing the levels of assaults. This discussion is focused almost entirely on alcohol consumption and licensing laws, and just about everyone accepts that there is a pretty close relationship between alcohol consumption and assaults. Guns laws do not even rate a mention in this discussion. To put it bluntly, in Australia, the relationship between gun laws and current levels of assault is one of complete and utter irrelevance.



I was not able to find any data of the form in the graph for earlier years. There is a correlation between the gun laws and the overall level of violent crime, though there may be no causal relationship. That they happened at the same time is clear. That one caused the other, isn't.

The real issue, IMO, isn't what weapons is used to commit the crime, as it is how much crime is committed. If the US only had 0.03 violent crimes/100k population, but 0.02/100k were gun crimes, would that still be an unacceptable gun crime rate? 2/3 of all violent crimes would have involved a firearm, which isn't like it is now. Yes, it's a ridiculous hypothetical, but it's a very telling idea. If we have 3 violent crimes/100k and only 0.001/100k involve a firearm in 2010, and in 2011, the amount of violent crime rises 25%, but the amount of violent crime involving a firearm decreases by 90%, is that better?



Hillwilliam -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 8:14:54 AM)

There is just as much proof that extended serving hours are fueling the rise in crime as there is that new gun regs are fueling it. zero.

The fact that no one is suggesting that X is a cause of Y doesn't mean that it isn't contributing.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 11:20:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
There is just as much proof that extended serving hours are fueling the rise in crime as there is that new gun regs are fueling it. zero.
The fact that no one is suggesting that X is a cause of Y doesn't mean that it isn't contributing.


Absolutely true. Also absolutely true is the possibility that they have nothing to do with each other.



Kirata -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 11:53:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The notion that assault levels increased due to restrictions on gun laws is laughable... the relationship between gun laws and current levels of assault is one of complete and utter irrelevance.

Yes, we've been here before. Last time around it went like this:
    The repeated suggestion that changes to gun laws in Australia caused an increase in rape and assault is ignorance at a stratospheric level... dishonest and self serving trash ~tweakabelle

    However, as the stated reason for the 1996 restrictions on gun ownership was to prevent mass shootings, it can be said that, to date, the stricter laws have achieved the objective ~tweakabelle
So let's see. Gun laws pass. Crime statistics change. The change you like is due to the law. The change you don't like couldn't possibly be. Complete and utter ignorance even to consider such a thing. Check. Every person of intelligence knows that the law of unintended consequences doesn't operate in Australia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

changes in licensing laws which allowed 24 hour trading in pubs were a far more probable cause... everyone accepts that there is a pretty close relationship between alcohol consumption and assaults

I can see how that change might have caused the assault rate to jump to a higher level. But that's not what the data show. The data show assaults rising at four times the population rate for a period of 12 years, and sexual assaults increasing at almost the same rate. That is not a "bump" to a new level consistent with the change in pub hours that occurred during that period.

There is no portfolio here that qualifies you to be running about calling other people "dishonest" and "ignorant".

K.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 3:53:32 PM)

A note to the wise (or those who wish to become wise) from one who has been there.

Putting up 20 or so posts/day when one is on Mod Assisted Vacation is counterprductive for a couple of reasons.

1. When they finally get approved after several days, noone will care any more.

2. Creating more work for the Mods is not the best way to get on their good side and get your posts appoved faster.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.



tweakabelle -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 10:39:22 PM)

quote:

Kirata


However, as the stated reason for the 1996 restrictions on gun ownership was to prevent mass shootings, it can be said that, to date, the stricter laws have achieved the objective ~tweakabelle
So let's see. Gun laws pass. Crime statistics change. The change you like is due to the law. The change you don't like couldn't possibly be. Complete and utter ignorance even to consider such a thing. Check. Every person of intelligence knows that the law of unintended consequences doesn't operate in Australia.


It would help restore your reputation for honesty if you quoted me in full, rather than editing my words to twist the meaning and create strawman positions. Restoring the bit you chose to edit out, my statement reads:

However, as the stated reason for the 1996 restrictions on gun ownership was to prevent mass shootings, it can be said that, to date, the stricter laws have achieved the objective their designers hoped for

Those last 4 words change the meaning of the sentence dramatically wouldn't you say? Rather than me making a claim, the text now reads as an observation about the claims made by others - the designers of the law changes.

Rather than me being selective in my claims, it is clearly you who is being selective. Deliberately selective in order to assign a position to me that I didn't adopt. Deliberately selective in order to create an imaginary position. Without that bit of editing, your argument collapses entirely.

Nasty devious tactics, tactics needed by you to gloss over the bankruptcy of your position. If your position had any merit, there would be no need to resort to such tactics.



tweakabelle -> RE: Guns & homicides in Australian crime: Facts (4/10/2013 10:47:46 PM)

quote:

The real issue, IMO, isn't what weapons is used to commit the crime, as it is how much crime is committed. If the US only had 0.03 violent crimes/100k population, but 0.02/100k were gun crimes, would that still be an unacceptable gun crime rate? 2/3 of all violent crimes would have involved a firearm, which isn't like it is now. Yes, it's a ridiculous hypothetical, but it's a very telling idea. If we have 3 violent crimes/100k and only 0.001/100k involve a firearm in 2010, and in 2011, the amount of violent crime rises 25%, but the amount of violent crime involving a firearm decreases by 90%, is that better?


Yes. Good point. I am unsure what counts as a 'violent crime' in the US but here it can cover anything from a fist fight between two drunks out side a pub to mass murder. It could well be the case that in comparing Australian statistics to the US ones, people are comparing chalk and cheese. This underlines the caution one must practice when trying to apply lessons from the Australian experience to the US situation.

It is up to those who feel that the assault and sexual assault figures are relevant to gun law changes to establish a connection between the two. Thus far in this thread, no connection has been established. I don't see any such connection. Neither does any one else involved in a lively public discussion we have in Australia at the moment concerning assault rates.

Perhaps the people who keep posting the assault figures could outline whatever connection they see (or imagine). Until they do, the assault stats will remain a red herring, an annoying irrelevance to this discussion.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375