Donald Trump & Australia

One of the problems facing those who assert that the firearms control laws (which have existed for many years and which were merely made more uniform across the states and territories) caused crime is that there is no evidence of causation. Crime has many causes and while in the US is may be necessary to own firearms for protection that isn't the case in Australia. Anyway there was no ban on firearms, just a tightening up of some states lax laws and restrictions on certain weapons and magazines. People here can still get firearms lawfully, even handguns.

I understand the need for personal firearms in the US. I have repeatedly said if I lived there I would definitely get a permit to carry. I have used firearms on a duty basis and recreational basis. Only one part of a firearm gives me concern, the barrel, when it's pointed at me. Just as it would be idiotic to suggest our firearms laws should be a model for US states, it is disingenuous to suggest that our restrictions on firearms have caused crime to rise because we can no longer defend ourselves. Not so.

 

Ditto slippery. I have always enjoyed communicating with you, and reading you blogs. You are one of the few members that can debate a topic from various perspectives without being biased.

I agree this is not the thread to debate this issue, but I would enjoy continuing this discussion to understand your thoughts on this issue.

 

How on earth do you link homicide increase to gun ban. It doesn't make any logical sense! In fact it is just ludicrous. There were obviously other factors as a consequence of violent crime rates that did not associate guns if in fact there was an increase in homocides.

10 gun related deaths per 100k people is massive in USA compared to Australia's 0.2 per 100k people. Our gun related deaths could be a massive 50 times more and still be under the USA rate of deaths per 100k.

 

Interesting post Diuretic. Yeah it was QLD and Tasmania who were quite lax with their laws I recall but you'd obviously know more than me.

My thinking is America needs guns because a lot of people own one, especially those that shouldn't.

I lived in California for a while and really didn't come across too many people who carried guns and in fact those who didn't actually own one. It was certainly different in Oregan and Washington. I was quite surprised how prevalent people's experiences were with gun incidences. Witnessed a handful of incidences myself.

I reckon America could easily cope with gun laws like our own. Everyone will feel much safer. Those that need guns are those who live in bear and moose country!

 

Marriage wasn't born from a Religious background! That's a load of cods wallop!

Marriage wasn't even born out of love at its advent!

 

Lots of tin foil hat wearers in A merica as well!

 

You mean you just do not want to believe the facts. All the data on AUS comes directly from the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports (check their web site).

Since the late 1980's, the USA reversed its gun control measures, made concealed carry more available, passed laws to allow people to protect themselves, firearm sales increased so more people than ever own firearms. And the crime rates - all of them - went down tremendously.

Since 1995, AUS implemented severe gun control and a gun ban, starting in 1996 crime rates immediately increased (they were declining) significantly (44%) and did not peak until 2001/2002. AUS disarmed the population and emboldened criminals.


Two cases of similar nations enacting the opposite policies, with the same conclusion - more guns, less crime.

You continue your false claim. You cannot combine homicide and suicide - they are not the same. The USA has about 4.9 homicides per 100,000 people. AUS has about 2.0, criminals in AUS don't use firearms as often as in the USA, they use other weapons. AUS has always had a low homicide rate compared to the USA, it was low before the gun ban, and it remains low. In fact, firearms have never been a big weapon of choice for criminals in AUS, it was all a scam by the gun banners who used one mass shooting to ram their ban down your throats.

Why is the rate higher in the USA? Because the USA has a higher percentage of large cities than AUS. Violent crime is very highly correlated to city size (the FBI UCR, table 6 & 7 I believe), the correlation is about 0.7 which is exceptionally high. Outside of the huge cities, the USA is very safe, safer than AUS.

 

Okay, my figure was a bit high for the USA and notice it was from data from early 90's, which was correct for then it seems. But still only seeing 0.2% with regards to Australia.

Now with regards to violent crimes increasing as a consequence of tightening gun laws it doesn't make logical sense to make a link.....(can you explain this first and foremost).

Now the violent crime rate is apparently 3.5 times higher in the UK than the USA. Looks great for the USA I suppose. BUT, the murder rate is 5 times higher in USA by guns as opposed to the UK.

There is so much data and information out there to decipher. Obviously the Internet is full of propoganda of all sorts and from all sides but one thing is clear, on an anecdotal level the USA has scary incidents involving guns......as you have probably noticed, people who support American citizens carrying guns would feel the need to carry one if they lived or visited there. What does that tell you?

 

How many times must I debunk this bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? How many times must I point out the cherry picked lies? Armed robbery in Australia is a catch all term that includes someone menacing another with a bloody toothpick!! It does not only apply to guns

Plus I know your linked graphs are wildly out of date

 

Remember that when you compare countries with anything other than murder stats law and classification of what belongs in which category of crime differ hugely. A couple of examples. We do not keep stats on rape alone. We keep stats on the much much broader category of sexual assault. This often leads to Americans contending that we have a higher rape rate than they do. Another example is spitting. Here if you spit on a cop it is deemed a serious assault -as it should be spitting is a filthy habit. But this legislation is only recent so will increase our crime stats

I have pointed these differences out more times than I can count often to the same posters week after week

 

Your "data" is cherry picked, misrepresented, misinterpreted and therefor misleading. Case in point the federal firearm reform did not pass until 1996

 

LOL, you have tried, and failed, unless you can "debunk" your own nations official crime data.

My graphs go to 2010, not wildly out of date. The official final crime reports are only up to 2014. And no matter what, my graphs are the official crime data for the USA and AUS. Again, if you can "debunk" them, then go for it.

 

I use 1995 as the starting point because it was the year before the gun ban went into effect. The gun ban was passed and enacted throughout 1996 as each state adopted Howards proposed rules.

And again you cannot deny that the AUS crime wave began in 1996 and rose in intensity until it peaked in 2001/2002. Your nations own official crime data shows it.

You can whine all you want, but you have never refuted the official crime data, I gave you the links to the AUS crime database. Now you don't even try, you just whine.

 

((((((((((((((((shrug))))))))))))))))))))))

Am not debunking the data but the misrepresentation of same

Six years is a significant time period

 

No, you cannot compare the USA homicide rate (4.9) with the AUS gun related homicide rate (0.2). Apples to apples. Removing firearms does not mean those homicides do not occur, some will occur just with a different weapon.

Look at the numbers. 4.9 per 100,000 homicides in the USA, 2.0 homicides per 100,000 in AUS. Sounds big, but then look at the violent crime rate, in AUS it went from about 700 in 1995 to 1,000 per 100,000 people. So for every 2 murders, there are 1,000 people raped, robbed, and/or beaten severely, and all those victims will have life long mental and physical trauma.

Whats the bigger problem, 2 or 1,000?

Criminals are not generally stupid, they will avoid armed people. In the USA, several times over the past 20 years newspapers have published maps showing the locations of gun owners. Some of these cases have been studied such as this study http://repository.cmu.edu/heinzworks/340/ which found that criminals avoided the areas with a high percentage of gun owners, crime rates in areas of low gun ownership went up.

When AUS disarmed its population, people became defenseless. The old man or old lady or young girl was no match for the bigger man - or men.

But its not uniformly high throughout the USA. The violent crime rate, homicide rate, firearm related crime rate, are all due to the very high crime rates in the large cities - and its not everywhere in the large cities but select areas.

The largest 10 cities in the USA account for 20.2% of all violent crimes in the USA, their murder rates are also far above the national average (17 for Chicago, compared to 4.9 for the national average).

The USA does not have a firearm problem, it has an inner city problem. Violence in the inner city is a symptom, the problem is not solved by gun control. The problem is poverty, failed schools, no jobs, corrupt city government, despair, broken social order and family, drugs and gangs. To solve those problems requires the politicians - "progressives" run these huge cities - to admit they failed and to surrender their lock on those votes, and they don't want to do that, but they will use firearms as an excuse and distraction.

That's why I use the FBI UCR data, and the AUS Bureau of Statistics crime report database. No middleman, no spin, just the data.

And that's why you cannot trust the media, as we all know now thanks to WikiLeaks and others, the media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the "progressives", and the "progressives" want to ban all firearms.

The data shows the USA does not have a firearm problem, the data also shows that AUS did not have a firearm problem before 1996. AUS had a low homicide rate which was trending down, the same with violent crime, and firearms were never a popular choice for suicide.

But that's not the issue with gun banners, they don't care about public safety (the data proves them wrong), that's just their excuse. The gun banners used Port Arthur to push their unnecessary gun ban. They tried the same here with Sandy Hook but failed.

 

Hardly a crime wave and it is as obvious as balls on a bull that statistics vary from year to year - this is why you have to track trends over multiple years and our trend is DOWN

 

The data shows clearly the gun ban triggered a huge crime wave which peaked in 2001/2002. Post 2010 data does nothing to disprove that fact.

 

That is why my chart shows multiple years, to show the trend which was UP from 1996 until 2001/2002, then flat for some crime rates and slowly declining for others.

But I see you don't even look at the data and charts anymore, you just make stuff up.

 

Hmmm the combined homicide rates that wiki has from undoc etc has our overall homicide rate at 1.0 and the USA at 3.9 so if people find alternate ways to kill why is our homicide rate still nearly four times lower than yours?

Hmmm now I see our rate seemingly rose by a factor of 10 - still half of yours. I see though you do not give us the USA violent crime figures
And I also see that when you make claims like this your links mysteriously disappear
Maybe that is because 700 is inflating the figure by a huge amount


In the last six years, the rate of robbery victimisation has steadily declined from 86 per 100,000 in 2007 to 58 per 100,000 in 2012. Generally, the rate of robbery victimisation has been declining since 2001.
The rate of sexual assault victimisation increased to 80 per 100,000 in 2012. The last increase in the rate of victimisation was seen in 2006. The rate of victimisation in 2012 is at a similar rate to what it was in 1996, when the rate was 79 per 100,000.
The rate of homicide victimisation has never exceeded two per 100,000 in the 17 years for which data are available. Victimisation has stayed at one per 100,000 since 2007.
In 2012, like 2011, the rate of kidnapping/abduction was three per 100,000 population; much lower than the peak of four per 100,000 in 1999.


http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html
seems our rates of robbery are lower than yours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

And as I stated, and have stated numerous times you cannot compare rape with sexual assault

So multiple misrepresentations of data

Actually I think it is the dancing stats and the shell game of lies

Errrrr no actually it didn't

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
and this

Results:
Higher levels of firearm ownership were associated with higher levels of firearm assault and firearm robbery. There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, as well as overall homicide.
Conclusions:
The findings do not support the hypothesis that higher population firearm ownership rates reduce firearm-associated criminal perpetration. On the contrary, evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm. Public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private
firearm ownership.
(Am J Prev Med 2015
2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicin


When AUS disarmed its population, people became defenseless. The old man or old lady or young girl was no match for the bigger man - or men.
[/QUOTE]

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

Possibly because there are more people

 

You mean the two unreferenced graphs that could have come from anywhere?

Here is my graph



http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html

Where did you get yours again??

 

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

Possibly because there are more people

 

As I have posted many times, and provided you with the links, and you have posted from the exact same sources before so stop lying and pretending you don't know the data source.

Mine come from the FBI UCR database https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr

And the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports database http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...e Issues&prodno=4510.0&issue=2011&num=&view=&

View attachment 46867 View attachment 46868

 

The reaction from common people has been unexpectedly positive in my view. People just don't buy the spin anymore.

No, the negative sentiment was universally prevalent across the Australian media. I was unable to spot anyone other than Bolt who didn't simply take the talking points released by the DNC and read them on the news.

That's to be expected with the Australian media though. We all love a good US bash.

The risk of war just dropped dramatically, as the fervent war hawk Clinton was avoided. Trump supports deescalation with Russia in Syria and the Crimea.

Australia is a role model for a good Trump ally. We spend a lot on defense, we have a very strong border control policy (the wall = turning back boats), we've been a strong military ally and sheep for the US since WWII and ANZUS.

We'll do as well as any nation can under Trump, provided Shorten (*)(*)(*)(*)s off.

 

It's good that politicians in our country are being reminded that ordinary folks get to have a say. It's good that assumptions about thought, language, attitudes are being challenged. Well informed electors are good for democracy, but they do need to keep up with the issues and not retreat into slogans and emotions. That goes for the politicians as well, naturally. It remains to be seen how we go with the US under Trump. Personally I think he will be a disaster for the US and therefore for the rest of us. But he isn't in office until January so it's all a bit hypothetical at the moment. It's not looking good though, the transition team is ballsing it up. I hope it goes better.

 

You saw more negativity from Australian press because our press are less forgiving. Bolt though is a complete idiot and will follow the biggest pay check. This is why he is a climate science denier.