Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Australia: "Homicides jump to record levels"

Discussion in 'Legal' started by cuchulainn, Apr 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    Note how the law of weapon substitution is at work here. Murders spike up even as gun murders decline.

    from the West Australian

    http://www.thewest.com.au/20030403/news/latest/tw-news-latest-home-sto93701.html
     
  2. SDC

    SDC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,116
    Location:
    People's Republic of Canada
    Hey, as long as they're not being killed with those nasty old guns, they're not really dead, right?
    PINHEADS:banghead:
     
  3. Ol' Badger

    Ol' Badger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Location:
    Locked in a Condo in Falls Church VA.
    GOOD

    Good. You get what you deserve. They hired the liberal loser politicians and look what you get!
     
  4. agricola

    agricola Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Office of the Holy Inquisition, Vatican City
    how does an under one year old child defend itself, and how have the disarmament laws affected that ability?
     
  5. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    381-15 = 366 Total

    15/381 = .039 or 3.9%

    So babies are 3.9% of the total for 2001-2002.

    Sounds like a pretty small number to be focusing attention on. You don't want to lose sight of the forest while focusing on the trees.

    BTW, it can't and they haven't, regarding your question.
     
  6. Bruce in West Oz

    Bruce in West Oz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Western Australia
    Except that the party that rammed through the legislation -- and subsequent further bans -- is the (capital "L") Liberal Party -- which is the conservative party, our equivalent of your Republicans! The left or socialist party here is the Australian Labor Party. Labor is traditionally anti-gun -- the Libs, up until this jerk-off of a Prime Minister (Howard), have been at worst, neutral -- at best, supportive, of firearms ownership.

    Hence the reason there was no opposition when the conservative party proposed anti-gun legislation in parliament. :fire:

    Bruce

    PS: A check on stats shows that gun-related homicides have been declining since the early 90s -- 6 years before the legislation referred to in this article.
     
  7. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Ag, maybe the babies were eaten by dingos? Isn't the government suppossed to protect everyone regardless of age?

    BTW, babies do not protect themselves. That's what parents are there to do. My children will reload while my wife and I shoot.:)

    Again, gun control has nothing to do with crime. It exists to control the people; the government understands that the criminal class does not follow their laws and could care less if they do or not.
     
  8. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    I gotta say, it sounds like a lot of these murders would not have been prevented if gun-control laws were non-existent. That's the problem with small statistical population groups, difinitive conclusions about cause are often difficult. The argument in this case aganist gun control should not be that more guns would have saved lives, because that conclusion cannot be drawn with any confidence; rather it sould be based on one's fundamental right to self-preservation. Whether or not one is ever forced to exercise that right is immaterial to the argument.
     
  9. bad_dad_brad

    bad_dad_brad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,073
    Location:
    The Midwest
    Statistically, that is not much of an increase since the actual sampling is pretty small (20% over a little more than 300 means almost nothing). I mean, Chicago Illinois as a city had over twice as many murders as this amount, as did Australia had for a whole country. 1997 Chicago stats, pretty grim:

    http://www.icvp.org/chicagoFacts.asp

    It puts things in perspective doesn't it? I would gladly give up my guns (except for long gun hunting) in a heartbeat to live in Australia or New Zealand.

    America is a very violent country. There are many reasons for this. I am too tired to debate it at the present, but it is a truism.
     
  10. Lock Down

    Lock Down Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    Australia
    Looking at the number of stupid people wandering around loose in Australia it's hardly a surprise.
     
  11. Hawkman

    Hawkman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    251
    Location:
    Atlanta
    And bad dad brad joins agricola on the ignore list.
     
  12. SemperFi83

    SemperFi83 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    20% increase in homicides (firearms were banned because they are used in homicides)

    200% increase in multiple homicides (but firearms were banned through “Australia's toughened gun control laws since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996â€)

    Firearms were banned because they are used in homicides {and multiple homicides}, and yet now the gov’t can’t attribute the drop in firearms homicides to the firearm ban…

    Exactly how are they measuring the “success†of their legislation?
     
  13. agricola

    agricola Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Office of the Holy Inquisition, Vatican City
    semper,

    bad's point about this being unreliable because of the relatively small statistical size is as relevant to Australia as it is to the UK. Multiple homicides are far more likely to involve family members, usually murder-then-suicides, which are precisely the type of offences that gun control could affect the most (since most of these killings will take place in the "law-abiding" community).

    hawkman,

    cant you debate the veracity of his arguments with him? (but if he has me on ignore.... :evil: )
     
  14. SemperFi83

    SemperFi83 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    agricola

    I wasn’t debating the statistics. I understand how they work. I was making the point that the antis always scream about the availability of firearms being one of the largest reasons for homicides and multiple homicides, but then when they finally succeed in banning them, all of a sudden the numbers cannot be attributed to their legislation. They can’t support their original argument no matter which way the numbers move…

    Crime went up? Well, we need more legislation!

    Crime went down? See? It works! We need more legislation just like it!
     
  15. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    381 is not a statistically insignificant number. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control uses 20 deaths a year within a given population as its border between significant and insignificant numbers statistically speaking.

    381 represents a murder rate of 1.92 per 100,000 (Oz population is ~19.8 million source)

    That is higher than or similar to 18% of U.S. states (nine states). Eight are have much less strict gun control than does Australia and are similar in population density/dispersement, socio-economic conditions and culture. (Massachusetts has high gun control and different other stuff).

    My point here is not to assert that gun control causes the Oz rate or that lack of gun control is behind the low rates in the U.S. (nor to deny those assertions for that matter), but rather to point out that the correlation between gun control and low murder is not strong. In the U.S., low murder correlates much more strongly to region than to gun control -- only one of the nine lowest murder rates is a from gun control state.

    Without correlation, you cannot have causation. The burden of proof is on the controllers, and they cannot support their laws with data.

    State--murders--population--rate/100K
    Idaho--24--1,273,257--1.88
    Iowa--58--2,877,296--2.02
    Maine--18--1,258,614--1.43
    Massachusetts--122--6,203,848--1.97
    New Hampshire--15--1,215,870--1.23
    North Dakota--12--629,305--1.90
    South Dakota--14--737,302--1.89
    Vermont 11 597,855 1.83
    Wyoming 10--480,900--2.07
    source

    Above are murders by all instruments, not just guns.
     
  16. agricola

    agricola Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,928
    Location:
    Office of the Holy Inquisition, Vatican City
    cuchulainn,

    Neither myself or bad said that the number was statistically insignificant, rather that it was unreliable because of its small size. one or two events on the scale of a Columbine, Omagh or Hungerford can affect that number (in terms of rises or falls) far more than they can affect a higher number.

    I'd also agree that the region and social aspects of that region have an affect on the statistics.
     
  17. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control uses 20 deaths as the border between reliable and unreliable numbers when looking at trends.

    381 is neither insignificant nor unreliable statistically speaking -- nor for that matter is the change of 64 from 317 to 381.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page