shannon8888 said...

ginger pom said...

shannon8888 said...

yes its getting worse much worse

evidence? or is the fact that you can remember more crime recently than you can from the past enough?

By that rationale, I am pooing a lot more than I used to.

maybe not to much more but much worse just like your poo

Ginger needs to read my post on P2

Yes, they are old stats, but in the 5 years post- gun buyback, violent crime increased considerably and australia topped the list of Western nations.

Mark _australia said...

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University
in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in
violent crime among industrialized nations.

A survey based on calling people up and asking them about perceptions of crime...

^^^^ Ginger

Where does it say anything about perceptions of crime in the Australian / English one? It said 30% of australians had been victims or serious crime and such - not how people 'felt' about stuff.

when it mentions a homicide increase of 3.2% does that sound like what people "think" it might be?

I would suggest they are police stats.......where else would they get the percentage increases in violent crime ?

Have you dismissed it out of hand without reading it as you only read the american stuff in the links (which was not actual stats, so you are right abotu that one) and didn't bother with the rest which was the Aussie and UK stats?

stamp said...

can you please explain this mark?

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

(My highlighting above)
Yes, easily
In the USA it is very easy to get guns so if you want to top yourself it is easy. The USA also does not have storage requirements for firearms in most areas so accidents are higher than Australia which has very stringent requirements. Obvious.

In 1995 homicides in Australia was 0.44 - so we have halved it after the gun buyback in 1996- yay!!!
Well, no, as in 1995 it was 7.07 for the USA so theirs also halved in the same period. My stats, your stats.

Can you explain that the UK and Australia have the highest rates of citizens affected by violent crime and serious crimes such as burglary - much higher than the USA which we all think is so bad. Remember, the USA didn't even fall into the top ten.

The buyback was a dismal failure as our firearms homicide rate (the primary reason for the buyback) has dropped the same as other countries, no more reduction seen, and Australia remains greatly affected by crime - more than the big bad USA.

Pre- buyback, in 1995, Tasmania has the most lax gun laws (along with Qld) yet had the second lowest murder rate of Aust states. The 1996 buyback was a knee jerk reaction by the Govt and the guns were taking off the normal law abiding people. ........ "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" rings true.


' In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[36] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives". Weatherburn responded "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice" '

Are you falling for popular prejudice, Stamp?

frant said...

Mark _australia said...

stamp said...

can you please explain this mark?

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

(My highlighting above)
Yes, easily
In the USA it is very easy to get guns so if you want to top yourself it is easy. The USA also does not have storage requirements for firearms in most areas so accidents are higher than Australia which has very stringent requirements. Obvious.

In 1995 homicides in Australia was 0.44 - so we have halved it after the gun buyback in 1996- yay!!!
Well, no, as in 1995 it was 7.07 for the USA so theirs also halved in the same period. My stats, your stats.

Can you explain that the UK and Australia have the highest rates of citizens affected by violent crime and serious crimes such as burglary - much higher than the USA which we all think is so bad. Remember, the USA didn't even fall into the top ten.

The buyback was a dismal failure as our firearms homicide rate (the primary reason for the buyback) has dropped the same as other countries, no more reduction seen, and Australia remains greatly affected by crime - more than the big bad USA.

Pre- buyback, in 1995, Tasmania has the most lax gun laws (along with Qld) yet had the second lowest murder rate of Aust states. The 1996 buyback was a knee jerk reaction by the Govt and the guns were taking off the normal law abiding people. ........ "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" rings true.


' In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[36] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives". Weatherburn responded "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice" '

Are you falling for popular prejudice, Stamp?

I just can't see what you are saying Mark. In the USA a person is 15 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm than in AUS. In the USA a person is 4 times more likely to top themselves using a firearm than in AUS. In the USA a person is 4 times more likely to be accidentally shot than is AUS. I think that Stamp is on the money.

usa population 307 000 000 aussie population 21 000 000 this maybe why

frant said...
I just can't see what you are saying Mark. In the USA a person is 15 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm than in AUS. In the USA a person is 4 times more likely to top themselves using a firearm than in AUS. In the USA a person is 4 times more likely to be accidentally shot than is AUS. I think that Stamp is on the money.

I am saying our buyback did not work. (Proven by scientific statistical review.) It didn't reduce the murder rate, nor suicide. Ignore accidental for the USA as they don't have the stringent security requirements that we do.

I'm saying that the highest firearms-owning nation in the world doesn't even rate in the top 10 for violent crime per capita (yes murder is high, see below) but why are the countries with the toughest gun laws plagued with the highest victimisation of ordinary people?

As to murder rate
" For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and,
despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate
in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US
group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence,
middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 -
about half of the US average.[6] (Mark's EDIT: that is the aussie group that own guns - normal middle class white males. We don't have gangs like the US)

If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the
alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide
rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun
control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa
2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian
gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2,
California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The
"guns-cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder.
Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. "

Suicide:

" Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase
in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging,
leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in
total suicide rates.[3] People who are intent in killing themselves find
the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically
correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but
do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths? "

Interesting the australian research re: suicide after the gun buyback has the same results. The suicide rate has continued to increase, just with other methods.

Love the robust discussion on here

Frant, in the USA gang members shoot each other. Thus the murder rate is high. However normal people are affected much less (than us here) by any time of crime. In Australia and Britain, normal people are victims more than any other country in the developed world. I really don't know what's worse.

But I can't indulge in any more discussionas I am on the way to the gun shop and then for a windsurf. Life's good.

Mark _australia said...

But I can't indulge in any more discussionas I am on the way to the gun shop and then for a windsurf. Life's good.

Feck! Windsurfing must be a tough sport in WA!!

maxm said...

Mark _australia said...

But I can't indulge in any more discussionas I am on the way to the gun shop and then for a windsurf. Life's good.

Feck! Windsurfing must be a tough sport in WA!!

Kiters....

Mark _australia said...

Love the robust discussion on here

Frant, in the USA gang members shoot each other. Thus the murder rate is high. However normal people are affected much less (than us here) by any time of crime. In Australia and Britain, normal people are victims more than any other country in the developed world. I really don't know what's worse.

But I can't indulge in any more discussionas I am on the way to the gun shop and then for a windsurf. Life's good.

Mark, That is an absolutely outrageous statement. Sorry but I have lost any respect for your opinions. No point in carrying the discussion any further.

GF and Frant - why in the 1940 - 50's could teenage boys go to army cadets / Rangers etc and shoot guns, and often take the gun home?
Why in rural australia in that period was it pretty normal for a boy to get a .22 rifle when he turned 16? Never had school shootings then (and neither did the USA when even more teenagers had guns)

Now you can't do that as society has changed. Maybe we should fix society, not ban guns - cos those people who need fixing and can't be trusted with a gun are the same ones who cannot be trusted with a knife.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people (blah blah)

And Frant, how is my statement obove "outrageous" when proven by the stats I posted above (few days ago)? Teenage males in DC have 20X higher rate of murder with guns. Middle class white males have half the national average. Pretty clear cut.
Further, as I have said ad nauseum, our burglary, armed robbery, stealing cars and general assault rates are waaay higher than america. I was not being emotive or saying it is ok for black teenagers to kill each other - I was just posting facts.

Mark _australia said...

I'm saying that the highest firearms-owning nation in the world

richest?

so it's ok to compare the US with an african republic going through a famine...

SandS said...

I recon more police with bigger guns, and let them clean the place up .

let them take some of these drongos out of the gene pool ! ?

Apparently they can't even be trusted with tazers!

In the last year I've called the donut munchers twice:

1. Robbery, bloke in the house and all, had just jumped the fence and was high tailing it. Police response "So the robbery is not still in progress?..., We'll send a car round this afternoon to do an insurance report." Couldn't believe my ears.

2. Idiot hoon flipped his ute outside my house. Easiest fkn arrest they were ever gonna make, took almost an hour for his mate to rock up with a 4wd to put it right side up. No show. They did come by a week later when the retard tried to claim insurance on it. I bloody well hope he got his money, he claimed it had been hijacked, and there were no police around to disprove it.

They are very diligent about standing around with their radar guns though. I will give them that.

Mark _australia said...

GF and Frant - why in the 1940 - 50's could teenage boys go to army cadets / Rangers etc and shoot guns, and often take the gun home?
Why in rural australia in that period was it pretty normal for a boy to get a .22 rifle when he turned 16? Never had school shootings then (and neither did the USA when even more teenagers had guns)

Now you can't do that as society has changed. Maybe we should fix society, not ban guns - cos those people who need fixing and can't be trusted with a gun are the same ones who cannot be trusted with a knife.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people (blah blah)

And Frant, how is my statement obove "outrageous" when proven by the stats I posted above (few days ago)? Teenage males in DC have 20X higher rate of murder with guns. Middle class white males have half the national average. Pretty clear cut.
Further, as I have said ad nauseum, our burglary, armed robbery, stealing cars and general assault rates are waaay higher than america. I was not being emotive or saying it is ok for black teenagers to kill each other - I was just posting facts.

Mark. Your statement is outrageous in that you exclude a certain class of people from your statistical observations. By gang members do you mean predominately black youths and do these black people not have feelings that are affected by crime. While you are at it do you want to remove the aboriginal population from thre AUS statistics because surely they don't count either.
Then your statistics are all screwed up. You state that Middle class white males have half the national average of murder rates with guns. (AT 7 per 100,000) this is a massive 30 times the AUS average of 0.24 per 100k. As a gun owning white (no class) male I will take my chances in Australia thankyou very much.
As far as the right to own firearms goes I am in full agreement with the gun laws which require a valid reason for ownership, a minimumof safety training and securely stored firearms. I was taught firearm safety and taught my kids firearm safety also. MOST importantly I was taught that you don't point a firearm at anything that you do not want to KILL. I remember clearly the first time (at about seven years old) that I shot a rabbit. It was only a baby and was a gut shot. It died in my hands and I could clearly see the "light" go out in its eyes as it died. I felt pretty bad that I had made the decision to kill this animal and that was a totally irreversible act. IT could not be undone. Made a tasty stew though. I did much the same with each of my sons, the reactions varied from bursting into tears and throwing a hissy fit etc. BUt all of us realize the gravity of pointing a gun at a living creature. Do not do it unless you want that creature dead. Guns do not kill, people do. A very trite statement as guns are a very effective tool in the hands of someone who wants to use it and a very dangerous tool in the hands of someone who doesn't know what power they hold. And then the crap about the cadets, firing blanks teaches nothing. Military training will not solve 21st century ailments in society.

If a Swiss person uses their service weapon in a criminal act the penalty is doubled.

I don't know about the statistics as I have seen other statistics that suggest differently.

What I do believe is:-

"A military program like that will do a lot more good for this country than the "touchy feely" social programs they have going currently."