Killer teen jailed 12 years for murder of chef Daniel Owen (Australia - No guns = No safety)

[shadowrider]

These victims could have gotten hurt if guns were allowed. Oh, wait.

"HE claims to remember little about his role in three brutal Sydney street attacks because he was high on drugs and alcohol but he will have plenty of time to contemplate his crimes in prison.

The teenager, now 18, who cannot be named because he was a juvenile at the time of the offences, was yesterday sentenced to 12 years jail in the NSW Supreme Court for the stomping murder of a chef, assaulting a cyclist and the violent robbery of actress Virginia Gay in June 2008."

--snip--

After being punched repeatedly and kicked in the face while on the ground, Gay flagged down a passing bus which prompted her attacker to flee. However, the violence did not stop there, as the teen and a then 16-year-old co-accused juvenile launched an attack nearby on chef Daniel Owen, 31, in the driveway of the victim's home.

Mr Owen was found dead, lying face-down in a pool of blood, just after midnight on June 14.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/killer-teen-jailed-12-years-for-murder-of-chef-daniel-owen/story-e6freuy9-1225843025180

[armueller2001]

1. .

Man, it's a good thing neither of the victims were able to defend themselves with one of those scary, evil, nasty guns!

[shadowrider]

2. Sure is. The perp may have gotten hurt

Any many people wouldn't want that to happen dontchaknow.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. Gee, thank Gawd those US states managed to become completely free of murder...

...by establishing permissive gun laws! Praise the Lawd and pass the ammo!

[cowman]

5. At least

I have the option to defend myself is some asshole of a criminal left me absolutly no choice and I would gladly shoot if my life or the life of my loved one were threatened, people like you gun controllers would like to take away that option

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. What's a "gun controler" person?

Let's say a person believes people should be allowed to have guns but favor mandatory safety lock laws the way they are now. Is that enough to make a person a "gun controller"?

[cowman]

9. Some one who

would try to deny me the right to conceal carry or open carry like my state permits. I had to go through an FBI background check, go through a course of gun safety and rules and regulations, and the laws of use of deadly force, and then I had to show proficientcy in the use of the firearm I am carrying. the gun control movement keeps claiming (falsly) that everytime a state allows for concealed or open carry, that blood will run in the streets because of more guns in law abiding citizens hands which is completly false. I support certain restrictions such as convicted felons not having guns, people adjudged as mentally unstable, no guns, background checks, but if a citizen is qualified, they should be able to carry a gun

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. So? You proved you're qualified. You got your gun.

All those hoops you had to jump through? They're a GOOD THING.

Now, there are some people who think people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, period. That's a different thing altogether, and I disagree with that.

[cowman]

14. If you think

that's what I implied that's what you meant, it wasn't and I apologize

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. Apology accepted. Try to remember there usually IS such a thing as a truly moderate position.

:thumbsup:

[cowman]

17. I

100% agree.

[wtmusic]

4. The murder rate in the US is 5x what it is in Australia

So excuse me for rejecting the bullshit that no guns = no safety. :eyes:

[rfranklin]

6. Don't exagerate...our homicide rate is only three times as much!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[wtmusic]

18. Wikipedia shows 4.5:1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

Whatever. Because of our rampant gun culture, the US is a far more dangerous place to live. A little bit safer than fucking PAKISTAN.

[Euromutt]

28. That very much depends how you define "dangerous"

If you look only at homicide, then yes, the U.S. is statistically a more dangerous place than Australia. Of course, that's ignoring the fact that certain demographics are significantly more likely to become homicide victims; e.g. a disproportionate number of homicide victims in the U.S. are young, urban black males, who are--not coincidentally--also disproportionately more likely (due to various socio-economic factors) to be involved in the illegal drugs trade.

However, homicide is not a reliable indicator of violent crime overall. When you look at violent crime in general (assault, robbery, rape, and homicide), whether Australia or the U.S. is the safer place depends entirely on which year you're looking at. In the 2000 International Criminal Victims Survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/Industr2000a.pdf), Australia had the highest rate of nonfatal violent crime ("selected contact crimes") of the countries surveyed, surpassing even England & Wales, and far surpassing the United States. Admittedly, the situation has improved since (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/), but my point is that Australia is not structurally safer than the U.S. where nonfatal violent crime is concerned.

In this regard, it's important to bear in mind that even in the United States, what the Bureau of Justice Statistics calls "nonfatal serious violent crime" (aggravated assault, robbery and rape) occurs over a hundred times more frequently than homicide. Given additionally that victim selection in homicide is much less random than in nonfatal violent crimes (i.e. your risk of becoming the victim of a homicide is way lower than the statistical average if you aren't, say, a member of drug gang, otherwise connected to organized crime, or the wife or child of an abusive spouse), comparative rates of nonfatal violent crime are a much better indicator of personal risk (for most of us) than homicide rates.

A little bit safer than fucking PAKISTAN.

What percentage of homicides in Pakistan do you think are reported to the authorities? I'm sure the numbers are fairly comprehensive in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad, but do you seriously think that every killing in rural Punjab, let alone the North-West Frontier Province or Baluchistan, makes its way into the official statistics? Especially considering more repressive regimes have a tendency to under-report their crime figures, just like they're reluctant to admit that the trains aren't actually running on time, for the very simple reason that admitting they don't have things under control any more than a less repressive government would undermines their one claim to legitimacy.

By way of illustration, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian government opened the Sov archives to researchers, it turned out the Soviet authorities had, throughout the Cold War, under-reported any crime figure by which the USSR compared unfavorably to the United States. In particular, as it turned out, the Soviet homicide rate from 1970 to 1991 varied from just below to (more frequently) almost double the American homicide rate, despite much tighter gun control laws and no "crack wars" (hashish and heroin were/are much more common in the former Soviet Union, due to physical distance from Souht America).

[wtmusic]

30. Good point about Pakistan.

I'm going to take you to task about handgun-related violent crime in the US, however.

Though murder rates have declined in the US where CCW has been adopted, virtually all other violent crime (especially robhery) is up. So if you're using that metric, people carrying guns around results in more crime.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. US violent crime is down.

Your argument fails due to it conflicting with facts.

[wtmusic]

34. No, your argument fails to isolate the effect of gun ownership.

Shooting Down the "More Guns, Less Crime" Hypothesis

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Notice what you said.

You said, "...all other violent crime (especially robhery) is up.

I posted a graph of US crime rates that show that our violent crime rate is down. Since our crime rate is down, while you are claiming it is up, your argument fails.

[X_Digger]

32. Not true re robbery..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/rob.cfm

[wtmusic]

33. Violent crime rates have fallen in general in the US

In states where concealed carry was adopted most rates went up.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[X_Digger]

35. Data only runs to 1997 (for counties) / 1999 (for states)

If you look on the expanded UCR data for 1995-2000, there was an bounce up in robbery in the south and northeast from 1998-2000, that has since dropped. (The northeast having fewer 'shall-issue' states breaks the correlation that you would like to make.)

Re Ayres and Donohue's article:

I don't think you read that article as closely as you intended--

Indeed, the probabilistic underpinnings of statistical analysis suggest that running regressions for nine different crime categories to see if there is any measurable impact on crime will, by chance alone, frequently generate estimates that on their face are "statistically significant.

<snip>

Unfortunately, life is not so simple. First, note that the story that was just told was very sensitive to the time frame we examined. If our evaluation had been conducted using data only through 1992, which was the case for the initial Lott and Mustard paper, then we would not have seen the dramatic drop in robbery in the nonadopting states. As Table 1, line 1 shows, over the 1977- 1992 period, the simple regression would have suggested that shall-issue laws were associated with statistically significant decreases in murders and aggravated assaults. Second, the Table 1 predictions would be valid estimates of the impact on crime of the adoption of a shall-issue law only if two conditions held: (1) each state had a fixed underlying rate of crime that only changed when some omnipresent national influence of crime pushed that rate up or down by the same amount everywhere or when a shall-issue law was adopted; and (2) the fact and timing of adoption of a shall-issue law was not influenced by the current trend or level of crime in a state.

<snip>

A major concern of any analysis on the effect of shall-issue laws on crime is the possibility that crime correlates with shall-issue law adoption in a noncausal manner. Indeed, examining the graphs of Figure 3, one can see that in four of the five violent crime categories and for burglary, even before adopting states passed their shall-issue legislation, crime was substantially higher than the regression model would have otherwise predicted (given the full array of explanatory variables). This raises concerns about the reliability of the regression model, because the higher crime rate in the prepassage years may suggest that the laws were passed because crime was higher. That would imply that shall-issue law adoption is, in fact, endogenous to the crime rate.

Gasp! Correlation != Causation ?!?

Yet after saying this, they go on to claim causation where only the weakest correlation exists, just as they (rightly so) castigate Lott for doing the same.

Indeed, for the clear majority of states, shall-issue laws are associated with increases in crime for all crime types, and the statistically significant impacts are more than twice as likely to exhibit increases in crime.

They do somewhat redeem themselves toward the end, however, positing that there are three likely explanations for the differences between their own analysis and Lott/Mustard- Not enough data (given that there are a mix of early adopters and late adopters in the set and a statistically large number of counties experiencing zero crime of a certain type in a particular year which makes the county drop out of the analysis- can't divide by zero), too much data (related to which distinctions are made, you can spin the data either way- see table 3), and the crack cocaine epidemic, which wasn't included in by Lott or themselves as a factor.

In the end, they basically throw up their hands and say "we don't think Lott is right, and here's why, but we can't prove the opposite, either."

[Euromutt]

44. The percentage of nonfatal violent crime involving firearms is also down

The percentage of nonfatal violent crime committed using firearms dropped below 10% after 1996, and has stayed there. Since 1999, the percentage of nonfatal violent crime committed with firearms has been 7% in most years, spiking to 9% in 2001 and 2005 (before settling back down to 7% in 2007 and 2008).

[Euromutt]

43. Firearm-related non-violent crime isn't up

Since the early 1990s, nonfatal firearm-related violent crime "has plummeted" (those are the words of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, not mine), both in absolute numbers (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm) and in rates per 100,000 population (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm). In addition, the percentage of nonfatal violent crime involving firearms has been below 10% since 1997 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/percentfirearm.cfm).

According to a BJS report, Weapon Use and Violent Crime (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf), based on NCVS data from 1993-2001, 10% of nonfatal violent crime involved a firearm, with handguns outnumbering long guns by 8 to 1 (see table at top right of page 2). Since the number of both incidents and victims of nonfatal firearm-related violent crime dropped by more than 50% during that same period (from 1,054,820 incidents and 1,248,250 victims in 1993 to 467,880 incidents and 524,030 victims in 2001 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.cfm), that reduction cannot be explained by a drop in use of long guns alone, let alone by a drop in use of long guns compensating for an increase in use of handguns. In other words, nonfatal handgun crime must have gone down.

[Euromutt]

46. Crap, that should read "firearm-related nonFATAL violent crime"

Didn't notice that slip until after the editing period was over. Sorry.

[Callisto32]

45. There is a difference between the gun culture and the violent criminal culture.

[SteveM]

8. You have confused self-defense with social policy. Corrections:

"...rejecting the bullshit that no guns = no safety."

Here, you have made a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument by implying Australia's crime rate is the result of a "no guns" policy. The Australian and U.S. crime rates have little to do with gun policy, but in the U.S. individuals have the right to self-defense using a firearm. This is a good thing, even if it is not "social policy."

While some people think an increase in CCW permits will cause a reduction in violent crime, the data does not as yet indicate that. Nor does the data prove the oft-repeated "more guns = more crimes" bumper-sticker used by controllers/prohibitionists. Both are social policy contentions. But having a reasonable chance at self-defense with a firearm improves the likelihood that an armed citizen will survive an attack.

See the difference? I keep a revolver beside the bed when I turn in. It is preparation for self-defense, not enactment of social policy.

Forgive me if I make a prediction: gun smuggling into Australia will increase dramatically (probably employing the same powerful smuggling systems used by the drug cartels to easily evade the hapless War on Drugs, LLC). Then, violent "gun crime" will increase dramatically in Australia as well.

[iverglas]

11. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Here, you have made a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument by implying Australia's crime rate is the result of a "no guns" policy

Yeah, and the person who wrote the OP and said No guns = no safety and blatantly ascribed the events in question to the firearms policy in place in Australia ... hey, you fill in that blank.

Oh, maybe you did already, and I've missed it somehow. I mean, you MUST HAVE, no??

[wtmusic]

13. +1

[cowman]

16. Ah your

back. Where have you been?

[iverglas]

19. ah, my

back?

I've been amusing myself. This place is a snooze.

[cowman]

20. Just wondering

hadn't seen any of your posts for about a month or two

[SteveM]

23. Glad you are in good spirits! Where have you been? Doing well?

[iverglas]

24. I have been sick sick sick

When I finally got tired of being sick - two weeks of coughing and coughing and coughing and making the death rattle with every breath I took, when I could breathe at all, and then, you know, the green stuff - I went to the clinic. That's what they say to do. If it isn't better after two weeks, etc., see your doctor. The viral may have become bacterial. Cold/flu becomes pneumonia/bronchitis.

After questioning me intensively about my smoking habits (you know, smokers are prone to chronic bronchitis, except that I haven't had bronchitis since 1974, although I did amost die of pneumonia when I was seven, and I don't recall being a smoker then ...), and listening to me rattle for a while, the nurse practioner pronounced that it wasn't pneumonia since I did seem to be getting at least some air to all parts of my lungs, and my O2 stats weren't all that bad ... so I have ........ a cold.

I've had it a month now, and currently I'm trying to kick the codeine ...

Hahaha. We can buy codeine over the counter (behind the counter) up here. Freeeeeedom!

[cowman]

25. Yeah I

know what you mean, been a Firefighter/Paramedic for 35 years now and have inhaled my share of smoke and now I have this cough for the last 6 months that I just can't seem to shake. I've been to the doc and he says my lungs are clear but my O2 sats are at 91%. Glad I'm retiring this sept. and going to take it easy although I'll still volunteer at our local FD.

Glad your better and back

[SteveM]

41. Two weeks? As you get older, 2 wks expands mightly in the continuum...

I hope you get over that crap, and glad it is apparently not "serious." (But verything is serious past 60.)

[iverglas]

42. if I were past 60

I'd be concerned!

Today, I pronounce myself unsick. ;)

[iverglas]

10. the magical gun force field apparently doesn't work down under (ed.)

Must be like how the drains drain backwards ...

http://australiancrime.blogspot.com/2009/11/murder-in-australia-2008.html

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Murder in Australia: 2008
Cases in Australia where a person or persons have been convicted of / pleaded guilty to murder in 2008.

16 November 2008
Tarcoola Beach, WA <Western Australia>
ERIC PEDERSON (49)
PG - murder - Joseph Hollomby (94)
Pederson stabbed to death Mr Hollomby, a long-time charity worker known as "The Shortbread Man".
Pederson had broken into Mr Hollomby's house in order to steal guns to use against another man.
Following the murder he fired shots at that man's house, which was occupied by a number of people.
He then killed his sister's pet llama.
Sentence - life / 19 years (McKechnie J)
Parole - November 2027

But huh, the practice of committing burglary/robbery to obtain firearms from law-abiding gun owners, and then using those guns to commit crimes / cause harm, well, that seems to be universal.


For all we know, chef Owen, for example, was toting a pair of six-guns at the time.

Or, more likely, chef Owen had no interest whatsoever in owning or toting any firearms at all.

So that would make his death, and the assaults on the other victims mentioned in the OP who likely had an equal lack of interest in doing so, completely unrelated to any firearms policy question.

--- edit --- for anyone who missed the point: the death of Mr Hollomby, on the other hand -- a man who owned multiple firearms that were in his home when he was assaulted and killed -- was in fact directly related to his own possession of firearms. If he had not been in possession of firearms, he would still be alive. Unless, like, he'd died of old age by now ...

And it would make people who try to exploit those events in the service of the ugly right-wing gun militant agenda ... well, you fill in the blank.

[Katya Mullethov]

21. I wouldn't sweat it

12 years ? Surely he will be out in 7-10 years to commit more burglaries and assaults ' thoroughly proving and continually illustrating just how unreliable the rest of us are at keeping him from fucking up .

[iverglas]

22. how nice of you

You always were so attentive to my posts.

Maybe you could provide some sort of reader's guide for me.

Like, quote something I've said and follow it with your response.

Because otherwise, I just haven't got the slightest clue how anything you say is supposed to be related to anything I've said.

Sometimes I'm just put in mind of this fellow I knew back in 1970. A bunch of us undergrads lived in a great big mansion in the middle of town. He didn't live there, but he was one of the numerous people who hung out there much of the time. Sadly, he had a delusional illness, pretty clearly schizoprenia. I remember one night when four of us were standing out on the rolling lawns on a moonless night, having an intense discussion of something, following an intense session of inhaling a pleasant substance. Every once in a while, this fellow, who was also standing with us, would say something. His words would kind of float in the space within the small circle we had formed, and I would see how, if I turned them over and looked at them from different angles, they were connected, in some tangential, ectoplasmic way, to something we had been saying ... we would ponder them in companionable silence for a bit, and then we would return to our conversation, until he offered another other-dimensionly mot ...

[Katya Mullethov]

27. Why Iverglas

You wound me .

[proteus_lives]

26. Only 12 years for murder?

Disgusting.

[Katya Mullethov]

29. Show some optimism , call it a jobs program

the apparatchiks gotta eat too man

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. HM Spokesperson-General has spoken for *all* Australians, so it must be true!

Bit full of yourself, aren't you?

[GreenStormCloud]

39. You should understand that we don't give a damn if you laugh or not.

About four years ago my wife saved herself from being murdered by having a gun on her. Her being alive counts much more to me than whether or not somebody on the other side of the world approves or finds it funny.

BTW - With exception of murder, Australia has a violent crime rate several times what ours is.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. You've got two different metrics for media reports of violence, don't you?

Media report of Australians Behaving Badly=

An example of a sad/tragic incident that in no way reflects upon the whole of Australia's fair society.


Media report of Americans Behaving Badly=

An example of a sad/tragic event that clearly symbolizes the pathology of American society.


Face it, it's easier to figure out than a Daily Mail crossword puzzle.