#Login Register


  • 4 Vote(s) - 4 Average
Home 


Australia Sees Spike in Gun Crime Despite Outright Ban
11-12-2015, 05:34 AM #1
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
Firearms black market in the island nation bigger than previously thought

Australia has seen a rise in gun crime over the past decade despite imposing an outright ban on many firearms in the late 1990s.

Charges for crimes involving firearms have increased dramatically across the island nation’s localities in the past decade according to an analysis of government statistics conducted by The New Daily. It found that gun crimes have spiked dramatically in the Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania. In Victoria, pistol-related offenses doubled over the last decade. In New South Wales, they tripled. The other states saw smaller but still significant increases.

Experts said that the country’s 1996 ban on most semi-automatic firearms has actually driven criminals to those guns. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney told The New Daily. “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

Gun control advocates in the country insist that the problem is too little regulation. They said, while most modern firearms are illegal and all legal firearms owners must obtain licenses from the government, ammunition is not controlled tightly enough.

“There is very little regulation of ammunition purchase,” Samantha Lee, a spokesperson for Gun Control Australia, told the publication. “In most jurisdictions you can purchase ammunition because you have a firearm licence and there is no restriction on the type you can purchase – so if you own a rifle you can still purchase ammunition for a handgun.”

“Gun enthusiasts are quite right when they say guns don’t kill–it’s the bullets that kill,”
Read more: freebeacon.com

One can not blame guns for killing people. They are tools. You can't blame a shovel for digging a ditch.

USA...Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/0...c-unaware/

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swi...hat-works/

People have been hoodwinked into a non existent paradigm. This happens due to lack of education, and lies from those at the top of the food chain.
Thought history look what happens when guns are taken away...

İmage

To those that disregard facts, enjoy your false sense of security that you gave up your freedoms for.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
- Ben Franklin

wonder.gif
11-12-2015, 05:48 AM #2
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,969 Threads:1,473 Joined:Feb 2011
There are other things at play when it comes to gun violence. If you look at death by shooting in a Nordic comparison, (Finland being the most armed country of them all), here's the outcome in the biggest cities:

2013 - sept 2015:

Stockholm (Sweden): 21
Göteborg (Sweden): 17
Malmö (Sweden): 7
Köpenhamn (Denmark): 6
Oslo (Norway): 3
Helsinki (Finland): 2
11-12-2015, 05:59 AM #3
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,022 Threads:426 Joined:Jun 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate

Canada is a bit lower than Switzerland in regards to gun violence.

From the Swiss article above:

"Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

But isn't society moving towards individualism?
11-12-2015, 06:02 AM #4
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
The stats speak for themselves. It's enough to make self proclaimed progressives, liberals and the dreadful SJW crowd pissy enough to beat the living hell out of anyone who confronts them with real data.
The truth sucks, so why not cling to the noble lie to substantiate a narrow minded false paradigm grounded only in their mind.
It's a religion, it's snake oil, much like climate change, it has absolutely nothing to do with fact.
Tis all matter of faith. ğck statistics.

wonder.gif
11-12-2015, 06:19 AM #5
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
To clarify my position, I'm liberal as hell in regard to social matters and conservative as can possibly be when it comes to spending and despise obfuscation of facts to fit the agenda of the day. As a centrist, I'm left out in the cold by both the left and right.

wonder.gif
11-12-2015, 08:26 AM #6
White Ribbon call me
Posts:9,779 Threads:371 Joined:Apr 2013
(11-12-2015, 06:02 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  The stats speak for themselves. It's enough to make self proclaimed progressives, liberals and the dreadful SJW crowd pissy enough to beat the living hell out of anyone who confronts them with real data.
The truth sucks, so why not cling to the noble lie to substantiate a narrow minded false paradigm grounded only in their mind.
It's a religion, it's snake oil, much like climate change, it has absolutely nothing to do with fact.
Tis all matter of faith. ğkk statistics.

Sounds like gun propaganda in your OP, where did you find that.. chuckle.gif

if gun crime continues and is such an issue here they will just ban all guns.. Which most people would agree on and not care.. I think they should.. No one needs a gun unless you live on a farm in the outback..
11-12-2015, 08:48 AM #7
White Ribbon call me
Posts:9,779 Threads:371 Joined:Apr 2013
(11-12-2015, 05:59 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate

Canada is a bit lower than Switzerland in regards to gun violence.

From the Swiss article above:

"Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

But isn't society moving towards individualism?

If these stats are accurate, look at the huge difference between Australia and the USA..

Gun control was the best thing that ever happened here, we had a few horrendous massacres and since gun control not one massacre. No one cared they took guns away, except gun freaks ( a small percentage of the population), lol, so in this society i live in, it works. In America it could never work and will never, ever happen. Ever. You culturally claim guns as your god given right, its in your constitution and there is no way it will ever change.. You have mexico on your border, so its kind of pointless to ban any guns.. We are an island nation, its not as easy to ship guns in, even though im sure they do, like anywhere.. There is not a huge cocaine problem in OZ, there is no crack, cause the purity of coke is so shït, so some things dont get in..

Burp.

This post isnt directed to you US.. lol.gif
11-12-2015, 09:28 AM #8
White Ribbon call me
Posts:9,779 Threads:371 Joined:Apr 2013
Quote taken from the Wall Street journal last month..

Quote: The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.

Adjusting for population, the difference was smaller: The number of public mass shooters for the U.S. was 65% higher per capita than the per capita rate for the Philippines.

Mr. Lankford, who collected information on mass killings from law-enforcement reports, scholarly articles and news articles, found that mass shooters in the U.S. were much more likely to strike at school and workplace settings, and to use multiple weapons compared with the other countries in the study, more that 170 in all.

The alleged gunman who opened fire at Umpqua Community College in Oregon on Thursday was armed with six firearms and a flak jacket during the attack, authorities said. “If we could simply limit the number of weapons—one firearm, instead of multiple—even that pretty minimal progress would save lives,” Mr. Lankford said.

While the U.S. has had more mass shootings in terms of raw numbers than other countries, at least three European countries—Switzerland, Norway and Finland—had higher rates of mass-shooting deaths per capita
, according to researchers Jaclyn Schildkraut of the State University of New York in Oswego and H. Jaymi Elsass of Texas State University.

The researchers counted 23 mass shootings in 13 European nations in addition to Russia from 2000 to 2014, with 203 deaths. During that time, the U.S. saw 133 shootings and 487 dead, resulting in a 0.15 mass shooting fatality rate per 100,000 residents, according to their tally. Separately, U.S. federal authorities have reported an increase in mass shootings in recent years.

Norway’s single shooting attack by Anders Breivik left 67 dead—resulting in its high mass shooting fatality rate of 1.3 per 100,000 residents. Two shootings in Finland resulted in 18 deaths, and its 0.34 rate. A mass shooting in Switzerland killed 14, contributing to its 0.17 rate. Germany had the highest level of incidents, but a 0.05 fatality rate per 100,000 residents.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-wo...1443905359
11-12-2015, 12:08 PM #9
White Ribbon call me
Posts:9,779 Threads:371 Joined:Apr 2013
Quote:Faking waves: how the NRA and pro-gun Americans abuse Australian crime stats
January 21, 2013


The Sandy Hook massacre and President Obama’s response to it has refocused attention on impact of regulation on American gun crime. Crime statistics before and after the implementation of gun laws provide a quantifiable measure of their impact. As a consequence, Australia’s gun laws and their impact have become part of the American gun debate.

In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre and Monash University shootings, the conservative government of John Howard introduced a series of gun laws. These restricted who could own guns and the type of guns they could own.

While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia. Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15% of these resulting from firearms.

Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occurred in Australia.

Remarkably, American pro-gun advocates try to use the impact of the Australian gun law reform to make a case that reform “doesn’t work”. This seems amazing given the homicide rate in the United States is five per 100,000 people, with most homicides involving firearms.

When gun advocates use Australian crime stats, they sometimes employ a number of misleading tricks and sleights of hand. These tricks are common to several politically charged debates, and are a form of pseudo-science. Let’s look at these tricks in action.

Cherry picking

The selective use of data, or cherry picking, is a commonly used method of extracting the “right” answer. This is true even when all the data tells a completely different story.

Cherry picking often exploits random fluctuations in data. Firearm deaths in Australia have declined over the past two decades, but from year-to-year one can see variations up and down. Bigger fractional fluctuations are likely if you shrink your sample size.

Leading US pro-gun lobby group the National Rifle Association (NRA) was cherry picking when its publication, NRA News, reported this statistic from New South Wales:

In the inner west, robberies committed with firearms skyrocketed more than 70% over the previous year, figures show.
Rather than giving the national trend over many years, the NRA chose one part, of one city, in one state and just two years of data. The NRA’s use of stats is misleading. Around Australia, robberies using firearms have declined from over 1500 per year in the 1990s to 1100 per year.

Look over there!

When the most relevant statistics give the “wrong” answer, advocates often switch to less relevant statistics that give the “right” answer.

In the Wall Street Journal, Joyce Lee Malcolm stated

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
The implication is gun control has increased assaults and sexual assaults. This is completely misleading.

Weapons (including knives) are only used in 13% of assaults and 2% of sexual assaults in Australia. Firearms are rarely the weapon used, and only 0.3% of assaults in New South Wales used firearms.

Firearm use is almost completely irrelevant to assault and sexual assault in Australia, and cannot be driving changes in these crimes. Suggesting otherwise is deceptive.

Logical fallacies are very common in charged political debates.

Homicide rates in both Australia and the US have varied for a number of reasons. Since the decline in the US occurred without effective gun controls, does this mean gun control is ineffective? No.

While some gun laws may be ineffective (laws with grandfather clauses, for example), it is wrong to conclude that all gun laws are ineffective. That’s like saying that because some cars are slow Datsuns, there cannot possibly be fast Ferraris.

Of course, this logical fallacy also ignores a gorilla in the room. Firearm deaths per capita in Australia are tiny compared to US firearm deaths per capita.

Making it up

If all else fails, there is a remarkably simple solution. Just make up some numbers. Over 300,000 people have recently viewed copies of an NRA tabloid infomercial which claims

[Australian] gun murders increased 19%.

This is just plain wrong.

However, inventing numbers is a remarkably effective approach, and isn’t limited to the internet. If you lie, how many people will check your numbers? If the lie is caught, how will that be communicated to your audience?

For the record, in Australia firearms are now used less in robberies, homicides and kidnappings than they were in the 1990s.

Back to reality

So what is the reality? Homicide and suicide rates have declined in Australia since the 1990s. Deaths results from firearms have plunged even more dramatically. In Australia, mass shootings similar to Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield have not occurred for over a decade.

Is this the result of the gun laws introduced by the Howard government? While some (particularly gun advocates) dispute their impact, several studies conclude the laws have made a difference.

Claims that Australian gun laws have increased crime are pure spin and deception. They say more about American partisan politics than about the reality in Australia.

http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-...tats-11678
11-12-2015, 01:31 PM #10
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,778 Threads:647 Joined:Feb 2011
Don't use mass shootings as the standard. That is very misleading. You don't need a gun to commit mass murder. Show the mass murder charts including ANY kind of method. Seriously, if I were going to commit a mass murder it would be with explosive and NOT with a gun. Then again, mass murder with explosives makes a statement and mass murder with a gun is an emotional outburst from someone that needed help.

I believe the whole gun control agenda goes right along with all the attention given to the race baiters, feminazis, SJWs, Presidential debates, climate change, terrorism and all the other media babies. They are all distractions.

Focus on ANYTHING except the things that are REALLY important. Things like the trillions of dollars poured into the military industrial complex on imaginary wars. The approximately half trillion dollars given away under the guise of drug fear every year. The trillions of dollars wasted on corporate welfare every year. The raping of America by the medical and insurance industries. Etc.

Imagine the changes that could happen if the cash flow were directed where it should be.

Unfortunately, nothing short of complete revolution will bring those changes. And we know how resistant to change the POO and religiotards are.

And remember: Guns don't kill people. A lack of super powers kills people.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
11-12-2015, 01:44 PM #11
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
(11-12-2015, 08:26 AM)the white ribbon Wrote:  
(11-12-2015, 06:02 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  The stats speak for themselves. It's enough to make self proclaimed progressives, liberals and the dreadful SJW crowd pissy enough to beat the living hell out of anyone who confronts them with real data.
The truth sucks, so why not cling to the noble lie to substantiate a narrow minded false paradigm grounded only in their mind.
It's a religion, it's snake oil, much like climate change, it has absolutely nothing to do with fact.
Tis all matter of faith. ğkk statistics.

Sounds like gun propaganda in your OP, where did you find that.. chuckle.gif

if gun crime continues and is such an issue here they will just ban all guns.. Which most people would agree on and not care.. I think they should.. No one needs a gun unless you live on a farm in the outback..
chuckle.gif It wasn't intended to be propaganda, I have no emotional ties to, nor love for guns.
Healthy debate is a beautiful thing. I never took the article to be pro NRA, just factual statistics. Sure, you can ban all guns and ammo, but the reality is, they won't go away.
How well has that worked with drugs?
Anyone with the tools and know how can manufacture their own guns and ammo, it's not rocket science, and it's unrealistic to go door to door and confiscate. Talk about SHTF...
You can attempt to legislate this this the best of intentions, but guns will still remain and the occasional psycho criminal type will take a long walk off a short pier with one regardless of legal status.
I hate to say this, but the old adage is factual that, If guns are outlawed, only criminals will own guns, and that's not exactly utopia nor a viable outcome.
I'm not certain what the answer is here, but the article is indicative of something that does not work in reality the way it does in theory.
The US is armed to the teeth and gun violence is actually down.

wonder.gif
11-12-2015, 02:11 PM #12
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,778 Threads:647 Joined:Feb 2011
(11-12-2015, 01:44 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(11-12-2015, 08:26 AM)the white ribbon Wrote:  
(11-12-2015, 06:02 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  The stats speak for themselves. It's enough to make self proclaimed progressives, liberals and the dreadful SJW crowd pissy enough to beat the living hell out of anyone who confronts them with real data.
The truth sucks, so why not cling to the noble lie to substantiate a narrow minded false paradigm grounded only in their mind.
It's a religion, it's snake oil, much like climate change, it has absolutely nothing to do with fact.
Tis all matter of faith. ğkk statistics.

Sounds like gun propaganda in your OP, where did you find that.. chuckle.gif

if gun crime continues and is such an issue here they will just ban all guns.. Which most people would agree on and not care.. I think they should.. No one needs a gun unless you live on a farm in the outback..
chuckle.gif It wasn't intended to be propaganda, I have no emotional ties to, nor love for guns.
Healthy debate is a beautiful thing. I never took the article to be pro NRA, just factual statistics. Sure, you can ban all guns and ammo, but the reality is, they won't go away.
How well has that worked with drugs?
Anyone with the tools and know how can manufacture their own guns and ammo, it's not rocket science, and it's unrealistic to go door to door and confiscate. Talk about SHTF...
You can attempt to legislate this this the best of intentions, but guns will still remain and the occasional psycho criminal type will take a long walk off a short pier with one regardless of legal status.
I hate to say this, but the old adage is factual that, If guns are outlawed, only criminals will own guns, and that's not exactly utopia nor a viable outcome.
I'm not certain what the answer is here, but the article is indicative of something that does not work in reality the way it does in theory.
The US is armed to the teeth and gun violence is actually down.

Gun bans would be effective if guns were completely eliminated from the planet. But as long as there are militaries that will not happen. As long as there are militaries there will be gun smugglers selling guns to criminals. And like I said before, there are many other means of killing people.

The war on gun will fail just as the war on drugs has failed. Treat the mental issues.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
11-12-2015, 02:24 PM #13
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
Amen

wonder.gif
11-12-2015, 04:36 PM #14
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,022 Threads:426 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-12-2015, 08:48 AM)the white ribbon Wrote:  
(11-12-2015, 05:59 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate

Canada is a bit lower than Switzerland in regards to gun violence.

From the Swiss article above:

"Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

But isn't society moving towards individualism?

If these stats are accurate, look at the huge difference between Australia and the USA..

Gun control was the best thing that ever happened here, we had a few horrendous massacres and since gun control not one massacre. No one cared they took guns away, except gun freaks ( a small percentage of the population), lol, so in this society i live in, it works. In America it could never work and will never, ever happen. Ever. You culturally claim guns as your god given right, its in your constitution and there is no way it will ever change.. You have mexico on your border, so its kind of pointless to ban any guns.. We are an island nation, its not as easy to ship guns in, even though im sure they do, like anywhere.. There is not a huge cocaine problem in OZ, there is no crack, cause the purity of coke is so shït, so some things dont get in..

Burp.

This post isnt directed to you US.. lol.gif

Very interesting take on it WR - outside factors. And it sure appears this post is directed at me . 13.gif lol.gif
11-12-2015, 07:58 PM #15
White Ribbon call me
Posts:9,779 Threads:371 Joined:Apr 2013
(11-12-2015, 01:44 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(11-12-2015, 08:26 AM)the white ribbon Wrote:  
(11-12-2015, 06:02 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  The stats speak for themselves. It's enough to make self proclaimed progressives, liberals and the dreadful SJW crowd pissy enough to beat the living hell out of anyone who confronts them with real data.
The truth sucks, so why not cling to the noble lie to substantiate a narrow minded false paradigm grounded only in their mind.
It's a religion, it's snake oil, much like climate change, it has absolutely nothing to do with fact.
Tis all matter of faith. ğkk statistics.

Sounds like gun propaganda in your OP, where did you find that.. chuckle.gif

if gun crime continues and is such an issue here they will just ban all guns.. Which most people would agree on and not care.. I think they should.. No one needs a gun unless you live on a farm in the outback..
chuckle.gif It wasn't intended to be propaganda, I have no emotional ties to, nor love for guns.
Healthy debate is a beautiful thing. I never took the article to be pro NRA, just factual statistics. Sure, you can ban all guns and ammo, but the reality is, they won't go away.
How well has that worked with drugs?
Anyone with the tools and know how can manufacture their own guns and ammo, it's not rocket science, and it's unrealistic to go door to door and confiscate. Talk about SHTF...
You can attempt to legislate this this the best of intentions, but guns will still remain and the occasional psycho criminal type will take a long walk off a short pier with one regardless of legal status.
I hate to say this, but the old adage is factual that, If guns are outlawed, only criminals will own guns, and that's not exactly utopia nor a viable outcome.
I'm not certain what the answer is here, but the article is indicative of something that does not work in reality the way it does in theory.
The US is armed to the teeth and gun violence is actually down.

The usa is a very strange to Aussies on many topics. This is one of those topics.

Burp



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com