Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Shooting Down US Gun Law Critics

Several misperceptions are being aired in their media about guns and their relationship to crime in Australia by US "pro-gun" advocates. Australia is often cited in the US debate due to its institution of strict firearms laws. US "pro-gun" advocates are using data and findings from the early-2000s to argue that the Howard government gun reforms had little effect on violent crime in Australia.

This is because of arguments around the impact on gun crime after the 1996 ban and buy-back of semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns following the Port Arthur massacre (35 killed, and 23 wounded) and the 2002 ban on both concealable and large-calibre automatic handguns in response to the Monash University shootings (two students killed and five wounded). Australia's firearms laws were seen by gun control activists as a test case for action against automatic weapons in the US and by the pro-gun lobby as an experiment that failed.

Dr Samantha Bricknell, a principal research analyst at the Australian Institute of Criminology addressed this in a piece published in the Brisbane Courier-Mail:
In the second decade of the 21st century the data was collected over a longer period and was more comprehensive, with real trends evident.
While there can be no direct comparisons of gun policies between Australia and the US - the "right to bear arms" is certainly not enshrined in the Australian Constitution - there are still lessons to be learnt from the 1996 Howard government buy-back and the current set of trend data.
These show that, while gun crime still exists and poses a law enforcement challenge in Australia, rates of gun-related crime have dropped significantly since the 1990s.
In the latter part of the '90s, 25 to 30 per cent of armed robberies involved guns.
From 1999 onwards, the average has been 15 per cent or about 1000 gun-related armed robberies a year and this has remained fairly static.
Homicide shows a similar trend.
In the mid-'90s between 50 and 100 homicides per year involved the use of a gun and this has reduced to 30 to 40 homicides over the past six years with a decline in the general murder rate to about one per 100,000 persons.
Most importantly since 1996 there have been no multiple killings using automatic long-arms and the Monash event in 2002 was the last handgun-related mass shooting.
The most recent AIC reports and statistics on gun-crime in Australia can be found at aic.gov.au/publications

17 comments:

  1. Except that the homicide rate overall hasn't changed much. It was 1.8 per 100,000 in 1995 and was 1.0 in 2010. Over the same period, our rate went from 8.1 in 1995 to 4.8 in 2010. Australia's gun laws went from bad to worse, and it's homicide rate barely moved. Ours got better and better, and our homicide rate dropped by almost half.

    Since we see here that gun laws aren't about keeping people alive, we have to wonder what the real purpose is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way, why does Laci express himself in such violent terms? But then, isn't he a critic of U.S. gun laws?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is an interesting fact to consider in light of Australia's firmly established gun control: Australian women are raped two times more often than women in the U.S.

    Gun control is good for rapists and bad for women.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not paying attention. Didn't you see the explanation about how different countries have different definitions of what constitutes rape?

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/02/the-definitive-comparison-between-uk.html

      Delete
    2. The definition of rape in Australia is forcible intercourse.

      Delete
    3. Different definitions of what constitutes rape? What kind of asinine statement is that? In your world...does no mean yes?

      Delete
    4. You're saying they have a stricter definition and twice as much. I'm afraid I find that very hard to believe.

      Delete
    5. Mr. G., did you even bother to read the link I provided? Here's the section on rape, which I realize is about the UK and not Australia, but it shows what I mean.

      RAPE OF A FEMALE: ===================================

      United Kingdom:

      “Rape is the legal category of rape introduced in legislation in 2003. It is the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis without consent.” (UGHOCS, page 25, paragraph 14.)

      United States:

      “Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.” (FBI – CUS – Forcible Rape)

      UK incidences of rape of a female: 14,624 (THOSB – CEW table 2.04, page 43.)

      14,624 / 621.46 = 23.5

      US incidences of rape of a female: 83,425 (FBI – CUS)

      83,425 / 3116 = 26.7
      You are thus 1.13x (26.7 / 23.5) more likely to be raped as a female in the US than in the UK.

      Delete
  4. Now here's a gem. South Africa has strict gun control similar to Australia. And yet criminals in South Africa used a firearm to murder someone 21 times more often than in the U.S.

    In a recent year:

    South Africa's population = 50 million
    Criminals used a firearm in South Africa to murder 31,918 people.

    United States' population = 310 million
    Criminals used a firearm in the U.S. to murder 9,369 people.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SA is a third world shithole. The US is the leader of the free world. What kind of a comparison is that?

      Delete
    2. Because South Africa has strict gun laws. Good citizens there have hardly any means to own and carry guns legally, but criminals get and use all they want.

      Delete
  5. From the piece: " there can be no direct comparisons of gun policies between Australia and the US..."

    Question: Why even bother continuing to write anything? Sheesh!

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously because your side keeps citing Australia in its arguments. This is called rebuttal or refutation.

      Delete
    2. And because your side refuses to take responsibility for your own self-defense, you should have to pay higher taxes because you expect the cops to take care of you.

      orlin sellers

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I love it when you guys try to rebut and refute the irrefutable. It makes you look silly than you already are.

      orlin sellers

      Delete
  6. Mike B...if your wife says no and you decide you're going to force sex with her anyway, that is rape.

    If you get a girl passed out drunk or drugged and have sex with her without her consent, that is rape.

    What constitutes rape in your world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you or I consider rape has nothing to do with it. The fact is different countries have different criteria for counting.

      Delete