Did gun control work in Australia? (Washington Post)

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

•Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
•During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
•At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
•Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Gun control is not crime control. Gun control increases crime.

 

If a person living in the nation of Australia cannot legally purchase a firearm for their own defense, why should we believe that they would be able to utilize one for their own defense after the fact?

You are quite aware that the phrase "all women" is inclusive to everyone, to the point it includes those who have suffered from debilitating injuries, and are bound in wheelchairs, correct?

Therefore you are basically arguing that a woman who cannot walk for whatever reason, be it osteoporosis, or complications from an encounter with a venomous creature, is perfectly capable of fending off any attacker with nothing more than a baseball bat, even if they are physically incapable of lifting or swinging it.

 

The reality is, most gun owners are men. So this attempt to use women victimized by rape as an excuse to maintain the relatively free flow of weapons in this country is nonsense.

 

Interesting isn't it.

 

Gun deaths per 100,000:
Australia .86
US: 10.64

Yeah, gun control works in Australia.

 

The total number of people in an area is irrelevant to the rate. It's a proportion.

Vermont just has a less violent culture than certain other states, just like Australia has a less violent culture than us overall.

 

Shark bites injuries:

Montana: 0
North Carolina: 6

Shark control works really well in Montana.

 

So, do you think Australians would just start killing each other more often with less gun control?

I don't. The Melbourne massacre was an anomaly, not a regular occurrence.

 

No, it doesn't. Please re read both paragrpahs, my point isn't subtle. I did not say that strong gun rights lowers murder rates.

Again, VT has the same homicide rate as Australia, yet half it's citizens are armed and they can all Carey a gun open or concealed without a permit. That it is rural doesn't change anything because we're talking about the RATE.

 

He's not understanding the situation. He's clearly got no empathy.

Killing someone in self defense here is a world of bull (*)(*)(*)(*) dumped on your head. You can DEFINITELY go down for it. Last time I was violently assaulted I was using kid gloves o the savages. They were criminals so they knew how the law around such things work. Total head (*)(*)(*)(*).

A lot of people don't know that about criminals. They know the law better than us, where the ccv cameras are etc.

 

Yet, as I and others have pointed out, the homicide rate in Australia dropped at nearly the same exact rate as it did in the US, despite the two countries going sifferent directions. Measuring gun control effectiveness by the number of gun deaths is just silly. If we use that as a measure we are saying that we don't care about how many people die, we just prefer they are stabbed to death than shot, because a slow agonizing death is what we want. ^_-

 

Actually, population density does affect crime rates.

 

does it?

Looks like Australia is more violent then the US after the Gun Grabbing

Assault:………………… Australia 834.5……….U.S 404.5 (386.3 in 2011)

Sexual Assault………………Australia 86.6………..U.S. 27.7 (26.8 in 2011)

Robbery ………………….Australia 71.1………..US 119.3 (113.7 in 2011)

Kidnapping………………..Australia 2.9…………US So rare records are not kept.

 

but what all these Gun Grabbers wont tell you that violent crime rates in countries like Australia and England are substantially higher then in the US
Assaults, Rapes, Kidnapping

 

The reality is, enough female members of the species both own and use firearms, to make them a relevant variable that must be discussed with regards to proposed policy. Firearms are not the territory solely of the male members of the species, anymore than employment outside of the home. Therefore any proposal for restriction access to firearms must also involve discussion of how victims of rape, and domestic abuse may be negatively affected.

 

Wow. Our homicide rate was once 0.016 percent. What a violent time that must have been. I can't imagine the absolute terror people must have felt knowing they had a 0.016 percent chance of being murdered. Clearly, it was a problem that could only be solved by constructing the largest prison system in recorded history.

When people talk about gun control, are you talking about restrictions being placed on what type of weaponry is for sale at the store? Or are you talking about restrictions being placed on who is allowed to possess a firearm? What is gun control?

The most effective form of gun control to occur in the United States was when the Republicans told the police to charge with everyone in certain neighborhoods with felonies so they could take our guns away.

Tamir Rice, a twelve-year-old child, was executed without trial because he was outside with something that resembled a gun. Is there a worse form of gun control? If the authorities are allowed to execute you without trial because you have something that looks like a gun then you are living under the worst form of gun control imaginable. And when you talk to people about it, it becomes quite clear that, on the average, Republicans think Tamir Rice deserved to be shot. Republicans think the police did the right thing and should not be punished.

Republicans. They don't want gun control. They just want to control who has guns. But the almighty store should be able to sell any type of weapon it wants to the three people the Republicans will graciously allow to keep their gun rights. So if the knowledge that you have a 0.016 percent chance of being murdered terrifies you and you want to do something about it, make sure you vote Republican.

 

I honestly didn't know this.

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*).

You know for a while now I've really be struggling with "gun rights" vs "people just can't seem to be entirely trusted with those rights" and even debating whether I should advocate repealing the 2nd Amendment (as I don't believe you can change things without getting rid of it; heck I'm not even sure it's Constitutional to require weapon permits or registration), but damn.

It really is all about mindset. If you're laid back, happy, non-violent people like Vermonters, it doesn't matter how many weapons you give them, they'll almost always use them for legal purposes.

Someone from Daaa Sooowwwth is a completely different story.

 

It is true that urban areas generally have higher crime rates than rural areas, but it's not so exact as ranking areas by density.

For example, NYC has a greater population density than Chicago, yet Chicago has much higher crime rates.

 

Trouble typically tracks with poverty.

 

So you have loaded firearms laying around your house just in case someone wants to steal your stuff. Do you have children? Are you a responsible gun owner?

- - - Updated - - -

I'll repeat.

So you have loaded firearms laying around your house just in case someone wants to steal your stuff. Do you have children? Are you a responsible gun owner?

 

The answer is no.

 

Not from the information I've been getting.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate

Australia has changed the classification of 'rape' to include indecent sexual assault which can also include inappropriate 'touching'. Nowadays rape figures don't only indicate unsolicited penetrative intercourse but a series of misdoings. .

Also as women begin to understand their rights, becoming better educated, are made aware of the different inappropriate misconducts etc, they'll be more prone to report any misdoings. What is also happening is, more women are reporting 'marital rape' as domestic violence moves out of the home and into the court rooms. Women nowadays are more likely to report sexual assault because the chance of the perpetrator being convicted is higher (mainly due to technology) and the stigma of being a rapee has been lessened. Also sexual assault in Australia is gender neutral so figures given could indicate both male and female indecent assault.

The article you posted didn't mention if sexual assault in Australia is based on reporting of the incident or actual convictions. Actually the information in the article is very scanty without any sources.

By the way,, nice copy and paste

It would be interesting to see rape rates in America by state. I'd hazard a guess states with more poverty and lower education standards would have less rapes reported. Only a guess though.

- - - Updated - - -

No to loaded firearms or children or being a responsible gun owner?

 

The shooter was a Chinese national scholarship student who was performing badly. Due to his results he was going to have his scholarship cancelled, he also got his firearms legally.

He walked into a crowded lecture hall and started blazing away with three hand guns. He was disarmed by a student and the lecturer who was injured in the shooting. Both men were unarmed.

At that time my nephew was dating Christine Young, injured in the shooting (just saying).

 

I'm not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by comparing the death rates from firearms in such disparate societies as Australia and the UK on the one hand, and the USA on the other.

Neither Australia nor Great Britain are a traditionally armed society, in the way that the USA has been since the American Revolution. So the more recent gun restrictions put into place in both Australia and the UK had minimal impact upon the general population. Few people in either country were even aware of the detail of the legislation, simply because it affected almost no one.

I don't have the figures for Australia to hand, but the annual death toll from firearms (murder, accident, and suicide,) in the USA is something in the region of 31,000. The equivalent figure for the UK is 40. The counter to this by some Americans is that Aussies and Brits use knives and other weapons to achieve the same results, but the per capita murder rate (irrespective of method) in the USA is 4.7 times that of the UK, and 4.3 times that of Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

So really, each society has its own level of violence and lawlessness, and direct comparisons of relatively unrelated aspects are not particularly useful.

There are any number of factors responsible for the societal choices, and violence levels, in various societies, and as with the UHC arguments on these pages, pointing to another, completely different society, and saying "Look how bad/mistaken they are!" does little to justify whatever position you are advocating for your society.

The lack of firearms (I would not go so far as to call it gun control,) works magnificently well in the UK and Australia, inasmuch as it keeps the gun homicide rate at a tiny fraction of that in the USA. But it should be understood that (a) neither of these societies historically employed a gun culture, and (b) these are very different societies, with very different value systems, from the USA - so direct comparisons are hardly valid.

 

i think you have the questions confused. My question was already answered by other members.