Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Australian gun control law results in dramatic drop in gun crimes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Lefty48197 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:15 AM
Original message
Australian gun control law results in dramatic drop in gun crimes
This would pretty much go without saying, except that the NRA and their nut supporters are always trying to claim that after Australia cracked down on private gun ownership, their crime rates went UP. I wouldn't be shocked if somebody even posted that in this forum. Here's a link to the truth, courtesy of our friends at the Brady Campaign.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=aus...

"Has anything changed in Australia since the new laws went into effect? Between 1987 and 1996, 100 Australians were killed in mass killings of four or more people. Since the new laws went into effect, there has not been a single massacre. Moreover, in Australia, homicides committed with firearms have been declining - slowly before the Port Arthur Massacre, more sharply since - from 28 percent of all homicides in 1989-90 to 16 percent in 2001.<4> While the 1996 gun laws did not initiate the decline in firearm homicides, they appear to have accelerated it.

Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide, Australia has seen a decline in the use of firearms in armed robberies. From 1993 to 2001, the proportion of robberies committed with a firearm dropped from 16 to 6 percent.<5>

Suicide rates using a firearm show a sharp drop from 1979-98 with rates continuing to drop after 1996 <6> and firearm-related accidental injuries in Australia are also declining.<7> Public health experts see these declines as related to tighter controls over who may obtain a gun, stricter requirements for training and safe storage, and longer waiting periods for obtaining gun licenses."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. Brady B.S.
I see more Brady dribbles


I have the antidote!!

http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm

That my friend is an UN report that says the OPPOSITE!

Who should we believe, the Brady bunch or the UN??

"From an old email I had saved"

From the UN comes this look at crime rates and victim attitudes for 17 major industrialized countries. What is of interest to gun owners is the not-so-surprising revelation that England now has the worst crime rate of all major countries. Following a near-total ban on civilian ownership of firearms, crime in England began to skyrocket. In the UN study, researchers found that nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people in England and Wales compared with an average of 35 per 100 in other industrialized countries. England and Wales also have the worst record for "very serious" offenses, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16 (yet another country that has all but banned legitimate self-defense, thus creating a lucrative hunting ground for criminals). The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.


For those of you that want MORE great reading on the effects of Gun Control, I submit to you this link of another study, by a Canadian university

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav...


Andrew, A simple Defender of ALL the Bill of Rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwynsw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Outstanding!
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 11:54 AM by alwynsw
Once more, the anti-RKBA crowd twists and flat out lies in an attempt to further it's agenda.

on edit: Pass me my bullet hose so I can spray a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. LMAO, he even used truth and Brady in the same sentence!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Just remember
to cover half of the muzzle with your thumb. You get a wider arc that way. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefty48197 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. You're saying the USA is not an industrialized country?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. so much bullshit, so little time
For those of you that want MORE great reading on the effects of Gun Control, I submit to you this link of another study, by a Canadian university
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav...

I'm not quite sure what "by a university means", but (and as everyone here for more than 2 minutes surely knew already):

- the Fraser Institute is a far right-wing (by Canadian and most of the world's standards) think tank, not a university;

- the author of the study is a Canadian university professor ... of business administration.


And I just can't imagine why A simple Defender of ALL the Bill of Rights" would be quoting anything as irrelevant and obnoxiously furrin as a Canadian study anyhow ... when, heck, he's got his very own Mary whatserface to quote, eh?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. well get yourself a gold star
and do the work yourself!

Mauser has been discussed in this forum so many times it will make your head spin.

It ain't my job to shred anything, or prove anything wrong.

I'm not the one who introduced the study and characterized it as "great reading". S/he who calls it great reading bears the onus of proving that it is great reading, I say.

Otherwise, we have:
great reading!
bullshit!
and I'd say it's a draw.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. well,
Than basically youre admitting that YOU CANT find anything wrong with it

Thought so


Andrew
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I see

Basically, you're admitting that you beat your dog.

Thought so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. about all that UK stuff ...
Those with an interest might do well to read something recent about that "root causes" stuff:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050128-0500-...

LONDON Vomit on the pavement. Scantily clad teen-age girls staggering into oncoming traffic. Fights in the street as police sirens wail.

This is Britain on a typical Saturday night.

An explosion in binge drinking over the past few years has turned many town centers into arenas of drunken debauchery.

... Prime Minister Tony Blair argues that the old system, which forced drinkers to booze against the clock before chucking them all out at the same time, fueled drunken fights, vandalism and vomiting.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/07/18/britain... /

Home Secretary Jack Straw said alcohol was a contributory factor in 40 percent of violent crime, 78 percent of assaults and 88 percent of criminal damage.

And of course, it never hurts to be up to date:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/recordedcrime1.html


http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/homeoffice/s?rds.hosb...
HOSB 02/05 25.1.05 Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime

There were 858 deaths initially recorded as homicides in England and Wales based on cases recorded by the police in 2003/04. This is a decrease of 18 per cent on 2002/03 (or 2 per cent excluding the Shipman cases), the first annual fall since 1996.

... Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 10,338 recorded crimes in 2003/04. This was an increase of less than one per cent over the previous year, although the number has almost doubled in the five years from 1998/99.

...

Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes, or one in every 250. This proportion is halved when excluding air weapons.

Handguns were used in 5,144 recorded crimes in 2003/04, down seven per cent on the previous year, following a six per cent fall in 2002/03.

There were 2,146 recorded crimes which were believed to involve imitation weapons in 2003/04, up 18 per cent, following a 46 per cent rise in the previous year.

There were 68 homicides involving firearms in 2003/04, down 16 per cent from 81 the previous year. One of them was of a police officer on duty, the first such fatality since 1995. Eight per cent of all
homicides in 2003/04 involved firearms ... .

Firearms were used in 1% more crimes last year than the year before. And the population of the UK rose by ...?

Handguns were used in 7% fewer crimes last year, and in 6% fewer crimes the year before than in the previous year.

Firearms homicides fell from 81 to 68 last year.

Whatever will the number-crunching rkba-head idols have to say now??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Interesting
"Firearms were used in 1% more crimes last year than the year before. And the population of the UK rose by ...?"
If the population also increased by 1% due to births, there sure are some young shooters there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Doubled in five yrs...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. lordy lordy lordy
Edited on Mon Jan-31-05 05:15 AM by iverglas


If the population also increased by 1% due to births, there sure are some young shooters there.

Yes ... and (apart from the fact that the population also increased due to immigration) everyone else in the UK stayed the same age as they were the previous year ...

It's a funny old place, jolly old England, isn't it just?


p.s. I do hope that the number-crunching rkba-head idols have something just a wee tad more clever to say about the numbers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. ooohhh, the Fraiser Institute
a nice agendaless source, there.

A leader in conservative views, to be certain. On most areas of DU conservative sources are not allowed. Here in the Gungeon we just like to point out that you might want to take a closer look at the contents of the info as the source tends to have leanings to big business and other conservative idealologies. Welcome, btw, to DU

Here are a few titles of some of their recent pubs:

Global Warming: A Guide to the Science
Global Warming: The Science and the Politics
Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Not Warranted, Not Beneficial
Fraser Forum, January 2003: The Politics, Science, and Economics of Kyoto

Other Key Programs And Publications

Managing Fish: Ten Case Studies from Canada's Pacific Coast
Index of Environmental Indicators
Crying Wolf? Public Policy on Endangered Species
Science Fiction or Science Fact: The Grizzly Biology Behind Parks Canada Models
Safe Enough? Managing Risk and Regulation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Were you going to make a comment to the original post. about...
The Brady Campaign being "a nice agendaless source"?

I am willing to wager that if no posts were allowed to have links to the Brady Campaign, then we would get less posts with links to the FI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. No, my comment concerned the fact that this (being DU) is a progressive
site. I commented on the fact that the Fraiser Institute has many agendas - all conservative. That shades all my thinking on what might be on that site. In most forums here that colors other poster's thinking - I am regularly stunned we have so many posts linking to ceonservative sites by progressives here at the DU gungeon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I am curious as to why...
the original source - coming from an instituion with a clear anti-gun rights agenda, and that is the central theme of this forum - didn't get a comment but the FI link did?

The criticism of the FI link makes sense to me...the lack of one for the BC doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I thought it self-evident
this forum is to discuss gun rights. Pro and con. The BC provides con perspectives and is considered a progressive site. I have no opinion on the efficacy of either site - I am merely noting that one is notoriously conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. tsk
Where the Fraser Institute's at, there isn't all that much wrong with being "conservative" (and even, in much of the past and perhaps again in future if we see a re-schism, "Conservative").

What the Fraser Institute is, is right-wing. On the pretty distant right-wing fringe of Canadian politics.

Google "fraser institute" "right-wing" and ya get 10,000+ returns. Here's one:

http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/21.4/t...
"The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism"

The <1997> conference <organized by David Frum> also revealed deep divisions between so-called fiscal conservatives who wanted a smaller role for the state and a climate that would foster business growth and social conservatives who wanted greater state involvement in legislating morality whether on abortion, criminal justice, or "family" values.
In the US, they go almost entirely hand-in-hand; up here, that is less true, and until recently the "fiscal conservatives" didn't spend much time pandering to the authoritarian right. The Fraser Institute is economically right-wing, which of course does make it completely out of step with actual Canadian values, which focus on things like social equality and tolerance and diversity and justice along with personal liberty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Thanks for clearing that up
I was trying to avoid the term Right Wing when I should have been avoiding the term Conservative. Different countries different meanings - I was trying to be sensitive and missed the context completely.

Good thing I don't moderate the Candian forum....er, nevermind. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Just so I can reference this for the future...
links for the NRA are OK because they are a pro site?

If not, I am anticipating that they are a "conservative" site (although they endorse Howard Dean). If this is the case, can you please clear up for me when anti gun became progressive and pro gun became conservative?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-05 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. You stretch the point too far
I have never disallowed or even advocated the disallowmnet of NRA links. Do I personally like them? No, I think they take the strength out of any argument you hope to make; I also feel the same about the Brady links - but that is all immaterial.

And, if you read the Dem platform you will know that they have provisions for some form of gun control. That is the party line. The Dems are considered the progressive party in this part.

And, as I mention to another poster with the same complaint, you miss the point by a mile. Look at the site in question - it is jam packed with conservative writings. Guns are not the issue that makes that site non=progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. it's pretty clear to me (at least)
Edited on Mon Jan-31-05 03:12 PM by Romulus
that anti-gun-owner groups are given the blanket label of "progressive" (by some oracle somewhere) and thereby get automatic "approval," while any and every pro-gun-owner group is blanket-labeled "right wing" or "C/conservative," even if it's called "liberals with guns."

Why that situation is the way it is = why the Dungeon is the land of flame wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-05 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Have you ever actually read the Democratic platform?
As it stands it contains statements that indicate there will be some form of gun control.

And, you miss the point by a mile. Look at the site in question - it is jam packed with conservative writings. Guns are not the issue that makes that site non=progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Very careful wording by the Brady Bunch...
and firearm-related accidental injuries in Australia are also declining

Not even in the top ten in US
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Suicide rates using a firearm show a sharp drop

Suicide w/o using a firearm is better?


Australia has seen a decline in the use of firearms in armed robberies

Same as above.


While the 1996 gun laws did not initiate the decline in firearm homicides, they appear to have accelerated it.

Appear?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. very *tricky*, I'd say...
Did you see this last bit on the page Lefty showed us?

The next time a credulous friend tells you that Australia actually experienced more crime when it got tougher on crime, offer your friend a Fosters and a helping of truth.

Actually, not one of the statistics they cited even suggests that Australia experienced less crime after passing this gun control legislation.

Note that they haven't shown us anything that would justify concluding that armed robberies or homicides have declined at all -- though they clearly do want us to get that impression anyway.

Oh, they didn't quite say that they'd said that Australia hadn't experienced more crime, exactly, or that that you should tell your "credulous friend" that in so many words, but...

Like I said: tricky! :eyes:


As we all know, one key argument against the efficacy of gun control as crime control is that such measures have the effect of disarming potential victims and removing street-level deterrence to crime; this obvious attempt by the Bradys at talking around that question sure seems kinda dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. But no lies...
Just careful/tricky choice of words and stats. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. Typical Brady nonsense
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 11:15 AM by slackmaster
The only crime victims they care only about are people who are shot dead in groups of four or more.

Notice they won't mention that Australia's actual murder rate - the probability that an Australian will be murdered - is unchanged.

Gun control supporters: To get better bang for your buck you should send your money directly to candidates who support your views on gun control. The Bradys spend much of what they take in on salaries and administrative costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC