On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Lazy Engineer wrote:
> To be honest, that chart shows that the ban appears to have been passed
> during a normal low blip in the stats.
Look at the median trend of the numbers.
> I see no clear trend suggesting the gun ban has had any dramatic effect.
Ok, print the chart on the biggest paper you can.
Draw a line to make an average from the start of the chart to the line
showing the confiscation date. Then make another line from the end
of the chart on that average to the same line. Now look at it again.
> My suspicion is that it will,
> but the data are far too erratic to make any kind of conclusion. The most
> recent data is starting to show the beginnings of a real trend, but not
> enough to really make any kind of definitive claim. I'm afraid I have to
> agree w/ the banners, we need more time (probably 3 more years).
> The data's good to have, just be prepared to have it laughed in your
> face if anyone does any kind of statistical test on it (Chi test, F test,
> whatever). The increase in crime easily falls within the normal
> fluctuation/noise of the baseline data.
What you fail to understand is that even if the results were flat, that in
itself PROVES that the promises of the Australian government about a sharp
drop in violent crimes and suicides if the people will just cooperate
and give up their guns, simply did NOT take place.
Never in the history of the world has gun-control laws or confiscations
reduced crime or suicides.
If we see anything at all from Australia, we can see that the whol
concept of gun-control is a lie and confiscations are even worse!
MT
>
> -Lazy
>
>
>
> Ian Underwood wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:19:48 GMT, Mike Haas
> > wrote:
> >
> > > IS AUSTRALIA WAKING UP TO THE FOLLY OF GUN CONTROL?
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [I know there are people who hate posts in HTML, but this way the
> > links are there for anyone who wants to follow them. -Ian]
> >
> > Australia: Less Guns, More Crime?
> >
> > What would happen if private ownership of guns were
> > eliminated, or severely reduced? For as long as most of the
> > participants can remember, this question has been at the center of the
> > ongoing debate over gun control.
> >
> > Proponents of gun control argue that the result would be
> > a drop in crime. They argue that if criminals don't have guns,
> > they can't use them to commit crimes, and that if criminals can't use
> > guns to commit crimes, many won't commit crimes at all.
> >
> > Opponents of gun control argue that this is naive.
> > They argue that just the opposite, a rise in crime, would occur.
> >
> > They say this is supported by common sense.
> > They point out that only law-abiding citizens can be expected to
> > obey gun bans or other gun control measures, a postion summarized
> > by the old saying, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
> > guns". And they point out that criminals who expect their potential
> > victims to be unarmed will be encouraged by that expectation to
> > commit more crimes.
> >
> > They say this is supported by history.
> > They note that guns are a particularly simple technology, and that in
> > a world where supply creates its own demand, it is unrealistic to
> > expect that it will be possible to stop criminals from getting guns.
> > They point to the examples of Prohibition and the War on Drugs as
> > evidence that interdiction is ultimately a losing strategy, and an
> > expensive one at that.
> >
> > They say this is supported by statistical evidence.
> > They cite the many
> >
> > studies
> > that have found that guns are used
> > far more often in self-defense by law-abiding citizens than they are
> > used by criminals to commit crimes.
> > They cite John Lott's recent book
> >
> > More Guns, Less Crime,
> > which shows that the FBI's own crime statistics (for all 3,054 U.S.
> > counties over a period of 18 years) support the view that violent
> > crime goes down, instead of up, when law-abiding citizens are
> > encouraged to obtain and carry concealed handguns.
> >
> > But ultimately, it's an empirical question.
> > Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on where you live and what
> > side of the issue you support), Australia has agreed to carry out
> > the experiment.
> >
> > Following a tragic
> >
> > incident at Port Arthur, Tasmania,
> > in which a gunman wielding a military-style rifle (which was already
> > illegal for him to have owned) killed 35 persons and injured 18
> > others, the Australian government implemented what is somewhat
> > euphemistically called the
> >
> > 'Nationwide Agreement on Firearms'.
> >
> > Under this 'agreement', it became illegal for private citizens in
> > Australia to own semi-automatic firearms of any kind. Severe
> > restrictions (amounting for all practical purposes to a ban) were
> > placed on the ownership of all other kinds of firearms.
> > An amnesty period was established, during which the government paid
> > $500 million for 600,000 newly prohibited firearms turned in by
> > citizens who were no longer allowed to own them.
> >
> > After two years, it appears that opponents of gun control were
> > right. Although comprehensive figures for Australia are available
> > only by subscription from the
> >
> > Australian Bureau of Statistics,
> > figures for individual jurisdictions are available online for free in
> > the form of official police reports for
> >
> > Tasmania,
> >
> > New South Wales, and
> >
> > Queensland,
> > as well as reports from the
> >
> > Australian Institute of Criminology.
> >
> > As you look at the figures below, bear in mind that different
> > jurisdictions categorize crimes differently, and collect statistics
> > over different 'crime years' (typically July to June, or January to
> > December). Also, the 'agreement' was implemented at different times
> > by different jurisdictions. But one thing is for sure: The guns that
> > were gone, were gone by the end of 1997.
> >
> > In Tasmania, from 1996-97 to 1997-98,
> > assault is up 8.8% (from 1888 to 2055),
> > sexual assault is up 22.3% (from 211 to 258),
> > armed robbery is up 68.6% (from 35 to 59),
> > unarmed robbery is up 4.3% (from 116 to 121),
> > burglary (buildings) is up 7.2% (from 13618 to 14594),
> > burglary (vehicles) is up 20.1% (from 5134 to 6166),
> > and damage to property is up 12.6% (from 6405 to 7209).
> >
> > In New South Wales, from 1995 to 1998,
> > attempted murder is up 25.3% (from 87 to 109),
> > manslaughter (not driving) is up 56.3% (from 16 to 25),
> > abduction and kidnapping are up 59.4% (from 278 to 443),
> > robbery without a weapon is up 30.5% (from 4952 to 6464),
> > robbery with a firearm is up 10.8% (from 824 to 913),
> > robbery with other weapons is up 130.6% (from 1894 to 4368),
> > and demanding money with menaces is up 54.5% (from 648 to 1001).
> >
> > In Queensland, from 1995 to 1998,
> > murder is up 1.5% (from 66 to 67),
> > attempted murder is up 17.9% (from 112 to 132),
> > serious assault is up 3.1% (from 9990 to 10298),
> > rape and attempted rape are up 17.7% (from 644 to 758),
> > other sexual offenses are up 23.1% (from 3869 to 4761),
> > robbery is up 15.1% (from 2062 to 2374),
> > breaking and entering is up 14.8% (from 64960 to 74565).
> >
> > Increases in other types of crimes have occurred too, but these are
> > the figures that seem most relevant the gun control debate.
> >
> > Some of the results presented here seem especially telling.
> > In Tasmania and New South Wales, robbery with firearms is up instead
> > of down. This seems to support the common-sense argument that by and
> > large, the people who turned in their guns were not the people who
> > were likely to use them to commit crimes. Guns have been outlawed,
> > but the outlaws still have guns.
> >
> > In Tasmania, New South Wales, and Queensland, robbery with weapons
> > other than firearms is up. This seems to support the common-sense
> > argument that criminals who have reason to believe that their
> > victims will be unarmed will be encouraged to commit more crimes.
> >
> > In Tasmania and Queensland, large increases in rape, attempted
> > rape, and other sexual assaults indicate that women, who stand to
> > benefit most from owning firearms for self-defense, are bearing a
> > disproportionate share of the costs of the 'agreement'.
> >
> > It is rumored that Australia is considering a ban on knives as
> > well. If so, criminals "Down Under" can only hope that it is
> > successful for them as the gun ban has been.
> >
> >
>
>
>
|