Whats the real story on gun control and violence in Australia?

[undeterred]

My co-worker and I were discussing guns- he has 5 and wants more. He told me that when people gave up their guns in Australia the level of violence increased. I asked him for documentation. Nothing yet.

So anyone know the real story?

[marions ghost]

1. you have to watch out for

this kind of skewing of statistics. Go to any rightwing pro-gun website and you will find this argument about Australia being promoted. Yeah, ask your friend for the website where he read this.

Gun control opponents in the US and Australia are pushing the idea very hard that levels of violent crime in Australia have increased directly as a result of the tightening of gun laws in 1996 (in fact Australia has banned handguns much longer than that--the ban was in effect since the 60's, and Australia's violent crime rate did not increase significantly during that time, nor is it radically different today although it appears to be on an upswing).

This Australian line is an incredibly simplistic argument. There are other variables, such as the levels of unemployment and increase in drug-related crime which have to be factored in--to understand the true direct causes. Also the level of investigation of violent crime has increased.

I seriously doubt your friend can provide proof that doing away with some excess guns in Australia in 1996 promoted violent crime in any significant way. Australia has had a longterm policy of handgun control and Australians worry much less about gun violence than Americans do. The general population supports strong gun control.

My sister-in-law is Australian and lived in Florida for 10 years. She got held up at gunpoint in her suburban driveway with her kids in the backseat of the car one night, and couldn't get back to Australia fast enough. She told my brother she would never live in the US again. They are in fact much safer from such violence in any Australian city, despite the increase in drug activity there.

[warrens]

16. Australia has become a conduit for the drug trade

Guns generally follow drugs.

[underpants]

29. I think the link to the rise in violence can be attributed to stem cells

actually stem cell research. See there really wasn't any stem cell research until 1998 so the rise in Australian crime is clearly tied to stem cell research.

Oh that and cellphones.

Oh and pass through tolls

and debit cards

Pretty much anything that became more popular around 1996.

Oooh oooh Survivor include that too.

[Eureka]

2. There are lots of myths

The word "banned" for a start. They aren't banned at all, they are restriced.

Personally, I have a 12 guage, a .22LR, a couple of air rifles and a 22 Hornet. The same sort of thing you might find in any "dads" style collection.

Also, handguns aren't banned either. You can have a handgun if you meet the other criteria (below) as well as take part in two competition shoots each year at your club.

The laws vary a little bit state to state but are generally uniform and I'll try to sumarize quickly

- You have to have a valid reason for having a gun. If you have a property owners written permission to hunt or have rural property, that's a reason. Alternatively, you can join the Sporting Shooters Association (50 bucks a year and you get a monthly mag), that's a reason.
- Guns must be stored in a safe that is either over 500lbs unloaded or bolted to a structure, either solid wood or steel. Ammo must be stored separately. Police have the right to inspect this (and only this) if they want, but you generally get 24 hrs notice.
- To get a licence you must have passed a background check and done a 1 day safety course
- To buy a gun you have to apply for a "permit to aquire" which takes 4 weeks, then you go to the store.
- Handguns must be of a model that is used in internation competition. This includes pretty much anything.
- Long arms cant be self loading (bolts, breaks and pumps (not shotgun though :-( ) are ok).
- There some formula for how powerful a longarm can be which I'm not sure about, since it doesn't matter, I don't need a 50 cal, I think you can go almost that far.
- You cannot display a weapon in public. If you are transporting a weapon in your car it must be out of sight, preferably in the trunk. You must go directly from home to where you are going to shoot, no shopping on the way (and thus, no excuses for having it in a non-shooting area)

That's about it in rough terms. If you want to know the specifics (in my state, anyway) have a look at http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/default.htm

As for the increase in violence, it's easy to make that case in percentage terms since crime is relatively low here anyway, you can increase 10 by 10% with only one, if you know what I mean. In all my 35 years, most of which in rural areas where most of the guns are, I've never seen a gun used as a threat or for anything other than shooting for pleasure/pest control. In fact, I've never even heard of it happening to anyone I know.

[marions ghost]

3. OK

and so you're saying that the law allows people in Queensland to own a handgun (with restrictions), but not the other states? And how long has this law been in effect?

Couple of other questions, just so I understand you correctly:

--You do agree that the "increase in violence in Australia" argument being used to pursuade people here that restricting handguns doesn't work against violent crime--is most likely not significant?

--The change in the Australian law that happened in 1996 (which is what most advocates rest the argument on)--did that have a significant effect on gun ownership and violent crime in your mind?

--Why do you think the violent crime rate is so much lower in Australia--is it because of gun restriction? DO you think the crime rate is rising and therefore Australians are buying more guns because of it?


It would be nice to get this information from an Australian who is obviously paying close attention to the issue. Thanks.

(yes I know it's legal to own longarms and has always been--we're talking about handguns)

------------------

Oh yeah, I had another question--do you have any idea if sales of firearms in Australia increased after the bombings in Bali ('02, wasn't it)? Have gun sales gone up in response to fears of terrorism?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eureka]

21. Ooops!

I earlier thought "It would be nice to get this information from an Australian who is obviously paying close attention to the issue" was being snarky, inferring that I wasn't paying attention, and of course my response was rightfully deleted. I have reread the post and I think I may have misinterpreted so I apologise for that.

So, instead of being a bastard I'll respond more like a person :-)

People in all states are allowed to own a handgun (with restrictions), it's the restrictions that vary state to state. In Qld we have to use the handgun for competition twice a year (just down at the local range, nothing major they have them every week)

I don't think the "increase in voilence in Australia" has anything to do with gun legislation at all. As kids (13 on) we all had our own 22s and shot just about anything anytime, but even then in the general community guns weren't used to resolve disputes. I think the increase has something to do with other factors. I'm no expert, but I think it would have more to do with changing social policies (rich-poor divide, that sort of thing) and with an increasing (and increasinly) urbanised population.

The law change did have an effect on gun ownership which I think was interesting. You see, when you didn't have to "do anything" to own a gun lots of people owned guns. Now that you have to "do something" to get one a lot of people just can't be bothered (or don't want to for other reasons like wanting to remain anonymous). Also, there were heaps of guns that were left in cupboards, not really used, just lying around from yesteryear. My Mum had a few of these, a double barrel and a couple of 22s that were from the farm and just found a spot to stay when she moved back to town. When the laws changed the govt had a "gun amnesty" and bought back any gun no questions asked. So instead of leaving them rusting in the cupboard Mum got a few hundred bucks for them. If you see stats about how many guns were removed from the community most would be like I have described. That's something the opponents of the buy back use against it, since the "dangerous" guns may not have been handed back, only the little pea shooters that old dears like Mum had :-) I don't see this as a problem though, as it may have saved a lot of trouble when grandkids etc find these old forgotten weapons, reduction of accidents is important as well as reduction of crime.

The voilent crime rate in Australia is probably lower than, say the US in per capita terms, is probably due to population density. Australia is about 90% the size of mainland US but there are only 20,000,000 of us, less than 10% of America's population. So we are a lot more spread out. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a country person, but I'd probably be a lot more violent couped up in a crowded city :-)

Firearms sales have increased since the Bali Bombing (stats are linked at www.ssaa.org.au) but I don't think it's in response to a fear of terrorism. I think it's more to do with the economy going reasonably well and people having some spare cash. I haven't met many Aussies that would consider a gun (long or short) a valid method of keeping themselves safe. Using a gun that way is most likely to get you in trouble, much better to smash them with an iron bar, and the chances of someone attacking you with a firearm are, from my point of view, amazingly small. I have a neighbour who works at a gun store, one that is a gunsmith, and both would reach for the iron bar if needed before a gun would come out.

Again, sorry for my ealier abusive post.

[marions ghost]

4. The Queensland police

DOES use the word "bans" on their website that you posted. So I would not call use of the word "a myth." See below.

So it would seem to me that the intent in Queensland is that citizens are not allowed to legally outmatch the police in terms of firepower (whereas here in America they can)

Also, look at the terms. Handgun owners are "sporting shooters." There is no reference to carrying handguns for personal protection or for home protection in urban areas. That would not seem to be a valid reason for owning a handgun in Australia.

Handgun Legislation Information in Queensland
Introduction

Since 1 July 2003 restrictions on access to concealable handguns in Queensland have been operating. The restrictions affect sporting target shooters, collectors and dealers. The legislation does not disadvantage sporting shooters who compete in Olympic or Commonwealth Games accredited events. The laws also do not apply to primary producers and people who have a handgun for occupational purposes such as security officers.

In summary, legislation:

* Bans high calibre handguns (above .38" or 9mm) for sporting shooters except for accredited events;
* Bans short-barrelled handguns (under 12 cm for semi automatics and under 10 cm for a revolver or single shot handgun) for sporting shooters;
* Bans high capacity magazines for sporting shooters;
* Prohibits possession of magazines without a license;
* Requires sporting shooters to participate in a minimum number of competitions per year;
* Requires clubs and new shooters to operate under a new scheme of membership and graduated access to firearms;
* Requires the registration of Antique handguns;
* Requires Historical Societies to become approved;
* Requires collectors of temporarily inoperable handguns to be members of approved Historical Societies and demonstrate the firearms are of obvious and significant commemorative, historic, thematic or investment value;
* Requires collectors of modern collectable temporarily inoperable handguns to demonstrate they have a prolonged and genuine interest in the study, preservation or collection of firearms and have their licence endorsed to allow possession and demonstrate the firearms are of obvious and significant commemorative, historic, thematic or investment value;

Last updated 09/12/2005
http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/legislation/default.htm

[benEzra]

8. Not legally, they can't...

So it would seem to me that the intent in Queensland is that citizens are not allowed to legally outmatch the police in terms of firepower (whereas here in America they can)

The police in the United States have access to automatic weapons, sound-suppressed firearms, concussion grenades, 37mm munitions dispensers, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and so on. All of the foregoing are VERY tightly controlled in the United States, and have been for 72 years, under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

[Eureka]

22. The symantics of "bans" is almost the whole issue

I don't think it's intellectually honest to say "They banned guns in Australia". If "They banned guns in Australia" because they banned SOME guns then it is equally valid to say "They banned guns in the US" because SOME guns are banned.

* Bans high calibre handguns (above .38" or 9mm) for sporting shooters except for accredited events;

Where else are you going to use them apart from at the shooting range? In most cases the range being open is an "accredited event". If you have private property big enough to safely shoot a weapon on (that is, you are likely to be a primary producer/farmer) the rule you've cited doesn't (necessarily) apply.

* Bans short-barrelled handguns (under 12 cm for semi automatics and under 10 cm for a revolver or single shot handgun) for sporting shooters;

I've no problem with that, if you are a sporting shooter I would have thought a longer barrel better for accuracy, and if you have a reason other than sport for having it the rules dont (necessarily) apply.

* Bans high capacity magazines for sporting shooters;

Unless the paper targets get out of hand and launch a counter attack the sporting shooters should manage to find the time to reload :-)


So it would seem to me that the intent in Queensland is that citizens are not allowed to legally outmatch the police in terms of firepower (whereas here in America they can)

It's not a matter of outmatching police firepower (with a handgun), it's more about that you have no right to defend yourself with a firearm UNLESS you are under direct threat from a person with a firearm. Gun v Gun - you'll get away with it Gun v Baseball Bat/Big Muscly Thug - you're in a bunch of trouble.

[undeterred]

5. thank you

This sounds like a much more sensible policy to me than what goes on over here. Percentage of households with guns in America is now 60%. 25 years ago it was 50%. I don't think we're safer from gun violence.

[MardiGras Bandit]

6. Crime in Australia DID rise.

Australia's heavily restricted gun ownership has led to dramatic increases in crime. In the few years after the gun laws were passed murder declined, which allowed the government to claim the laws were a success. However rape, assault, and robbery all went up sharply, each moving up higher then murder fell. Overall crime rose dramatically.

The same thing happened in the UK after its very similar gun laws passed. I'm not sure of the exact statistics (I wrote a paper on this, it's on another computer but I'll find it and post the relevant information), but this trend has occurred in every location that restricts or bans gun ownership. The opposite occurs in places embracing gun ownership and promoting concealed carry laws.

Australia had liberal (conservative? what word to use...) gun laws until a single high profile shooting incident led to government overreaction and its current laws. Think of it like the Patriot Act, but with an even less justified cause.

[undeterred]

7. Welcome to DU!

But how do they know that there is a cause and effect relationship between restricting gun ownership and violent crime?

[benEzra]

9. You can't say...

since post hoc ergo prompter hoc is a fallacy. But it is the case that crime did increase somewhat since the new laws were enacted, although careful choice of beginning and ending dates can obscure that trend a bit.

But one point that is often forgotten in such comparisons is that Australia had very, very low crime rates even when their gun laws were similar to those of the United States. The U.S. is an extremely dysfunctional society and Australia's wasn't ten years ago (though it may be fraying around the edges now). That has little to do with lawful gun ownership.

FWIW, Australia's near-absolute ban on self-loading long guns is unbelievably draconian, in my view. An Australia-style ban here would confiscate nearly every firearm my wife and I own.

[MardiGras Bandit]

10. Thanks for the Welcome!

If Australia was an isolated incident such a direct connection could not be drawn. However it is not, similar crime trends occur in virtually every place to adopt such laws. Calling America dysfunctional isn't fair, the UK has the highest crime rates in the western world.

There are many studies about the effect of gun control on crime rates, the two best (or worst, depending on who you ask) are Gary Kleck's study for the Justice Department and John Lott's study detailed in More Guns, Less Crime. Both found a strong correlation between high levels of gun ownership and lower levels of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, etc). Ironically, high levels of gun ownership also seems to lead to a substitution effect for criminals, as most places that enacted concealed carry saw a rise in property crime.

[dsc]

11. Mr Lott

has been throughly discredited as a mathematician. I don't follow gun debates too much but I do follow the goings on with mathematics. Lott has a terrible rep unrelated to his advocacy of guns in mathematics circles. He is bad enough that if he told me 2 + 2 = 4 I would have to think before I accepted it.

[MardiGras Bandit]

12. Lott's Math.

There was some question as to one of the tests he used (he wrote a good rebuttal to that in the 2nd edition of his book), but other then that I'm under the impression that the criticism of his methods were exaggerated or didn't hold up under scrutiny. I've heard a lot of rumors about it, but never seen any direct examples.

Props for arguing based on math though, it's far more valid then "he works for the gun industry". :eyes:

[dsc]

13. I admit to not having seen any rebuttal

but the charges were pretty damning. I will try to find some links later.

[dsc]

17. Here is a good site to look at in this regard

http://timlambert.org/2005/04/malkinsoped/

Note that the original person complaining about him is Michelle Malkin who is hardly an anti gun zealot. Lott has repeatedly engaged in unethical conduct that really clouds his research. I wouldn't believe a thing this man says.

[MrBenchley]

19. In fact, John Lott is synonymous with academic fraud

and made himself an international laughing stock by inventing and posing as an adoring female student who was "dfefending her professor" against them mean old critics.

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/

Besides being a gun loony, he's also a racist who has "proven" that Rush Limbaugh's racial slurs were justified, that minority police officers increase crime, and that Florida didn't really keep blacks from voting in 2000 (Flroida admitted it had when settling the NAACP's lawsuit).

[underpants]

30. Whoa whoa whoa LOTT?

Look I am open to arguments about guns. I find them very interesting but I also find them (both sides) using skewed data but don't bring John Lott into it he is a joke and mentioning him turns anyone remotely aware of this issue and/or him off.

Just some friendly advise.

[underpants]

28. What about the link to cellphones?

Sounds to me like the timeframe we are talking about here coincides with the prevalence of cellphones or could that just be a coincidence and a fallacy to relate the two?

[Eureka]

15. Maybe they go a little too far

especially with the types of weapons you can't have, but I agree overall with the licencing restrictions and the need to regulate possession.

If you can't sit through a one day course to get permission to have a weapon then I would suggest you either don't really want one or probably shouldn't have one, it's really not that big a deal (at least half the day is on the range anyway, and most of that is with a variety of weapons club members let you use just to try stuff out)

Incidentally, the Sporting Shooters Assoc (basically our NRA) has an article on their front page at the moment about thier perspective on the gun laws (now ten years old), http://www.ssaa.org.au/.

A big difference between our respective countries is that over here the use of a firearm for self defense is pretty much not allowed, so discussion about firearms as a personal protection doesn't really work. For Australians, guns are for "sport", not for self defense.

And of course, with all our laws, it's still quicker and cheaper to head down to the local seedy bar and buy something out of the back of some deadbeats car.

[marions ghost]

24. exactly

"the use of a firearms for self-defense is pretty much not allowed" in Australia, so discussion about
firearms as personal protection doesn't really work.

This is THE big difference between our countries, and the statistics show which policy is better for public health. To Americans firearms are primarilty for 'personal protection' against any and all real or imagined dangers.

Australia has sensible gun laws, America does not. And probably won't anytime soon. We are degenerating as a society, so there will be no end to the proliferation of guns as an antidote to fear and insecurity. I know we can't really inject any reason into the debate now. What are gun fanatics ranting about now? They have it all their way. Nobody's going to take away their guns.

[MardiGras Bandit]

25. Yes, the statistics are quite telling.

"This is THE big difference between our countries, and the statistics show which policy is better for public health."

Yes, they do. The statistics make clear that firearm ownership has a strong correlation with a decrease in violent crime.

"I know we can't really inject any reason into the debate now. What are gun fanatics ranting about now? They have it all their way. Nobody's going to take away their guns."

Here is a list of places that have taken guns away: D.C., Chicago, New York City, New Orleans, San Fransico. I'm sure their are more. They don't have to be fully banned in order for them to be impractical to get a hold of. NY state makes the process for aquiring a handgun expensive and cumbersome so that many don't bother trying.

"Australia has sensible gun laws, America does not."

Although I agree with you on the second part, I could not be farther from you on the first. Disallowing guns for personal protection as a hysterical response to a single tragic incident is idiotic, both morally and statistically.

[marions ghost]

26. you and I live in 2 different worlds

I don't see guns used effectively for "personal protection" where I am. I don't believe most people use them responsibly and learn to use them well enough. Guns should only be for a limited crowd of sports people and those who hunt for food--no more than 20% of society. Around here in the suburbs, I see them involved in gun accidents, used in suicides, used to threaten people (which has happened to me), etc. We even had a kid with a high-powered rifle who would periodically terrorize the neighborhood, stealthily shooting...just enough to scare people, set dogs off, tear up mailboxes, etc. There was nothing that could be done about it as nobody could "catch him in the act." Children could not play around the neighborhood safely until he finally grew up and moved away. I kid you not. This is an infringement on MY rights, and yet, nothing could be done about it legally (we tried).

Statistics: Statistics show that where guns are easily available, guns kill people.

Look, guns are easier to get in America than an egg salad sandwich. If NY state gun laws are difficult and deter some, that's OK. They probably weren't serious about owning one. Just wanted it because the guy next door has one, like big screen TVs. Guns are not practical for the masses --unless you want more mayhem, more Columbines, more "nightly killings" on TV. It's just not working for 'personal protection' in a civilized society.

Our society is so paranoid and full of hysteria now, do you honestly think anyone is going to sensibly address the problem of guns? No way. So you don't even have to bother going around and promoting them now. You have won the argument for the forseeable future. All the gun control people can hope for is slightly more tweaking of inadequate controls here and there. All gun control people can do is try to convince people that guns are a waste of time and money as 'personal protection'...that they serve no practical purpose for most people.

It's very human to think you can control with brute force, lethal force. I haven't seen that working too well lately. Just doesn't work.

[MardiGras Bandit]

27. Crazy rifle kid

Did you try shooting him? That is exactly why people need guns for protection. Having some psychopath wandering your neighborhood randomly shooting and police that are unable and unwilling to do anything to protect you from him is a powerful case for owning a gun. Remember, the police have no legal responsibility to protect you.

Guns are a powerful deterrent to crime. Criminals actively target those they believe to be unarmed because they know they make far easier victims. Since criminals can really only guess who is armed or not, areas with high levels of gun ownership (particularly concealed carry) see lower levels of violent crime.

[marions ghost]

31. Bah

oh GREAT idea. Oh yeah, me and this teenager should have a shootout over in the woods. I who have never shot a gun and wouldn't want to, should go challenge this teenager who can hit a mailbox a mile away. Oh yeah, and then REALLY become a target of a borderline personality stalker...Brilliant. So "shooting him" is the answer to any conflict. Frontier mentality. GOOD way to get your own self killed.

Far from being safer, in areas of high gun ownership, you can't even walk around outside. Like I said, you want to live in a fortress, with a large arsenal. I don't, and never will.

:hi:

[benEzra]

32. You mean like Maine?

Far from being safer, in areas of high gun ownership, you can't even walk around outside. Like I said, you want to live in a fortress, with a large arsenal. I don't, and never will.

You mean like my wife's home state of Maine? Safest state in the nation...and a state with one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership.

Vermont doesn't even require a license to carry a gun on your person for lawful self-defense.

On the other side of the coin, possession of functional firearms by ordinary citizens is absolutely prohibited in the District of Columbia, even in your own home. The rate of lawful gun ownership is near zero. Yet that city is quite dangerous, as is Chicago (which also has an extremely low rate of lawful gun ownership).

D.C. and Chicago both have far higher rates of criminal gun ownership than Maine and Vermont, though...

As I mentioned recently in another thread, the problem in the U.S. is that it has many pockets (mostly urban) that constitute completely dysfunctional mini-societies. Most of our violent crime occurs in these dysfunctional areas, which coincidentally have some the lowest rates of lawful gun ownership in the United States (I dare say the rate of lawful gun ownership in the District of Columbia is as low as, or lower than, that of the UK). Hence, within the United States, the strictness of gun laws between different places seems to have little determinant effect on the crime rate; the major factors are all sociological (median income, magnitude of the rich/poor gap, unemployment, job quality, quality of social services available, education levels, etc.).

The premise that enacting UK-style gun bans in the United States would reduce violent crime to UK levels is highly questionable, due to the other sociological factors that cause our relatively high crime rates. Crime rates in the United Kingdom and Australia were as low (or lower) when lawful gun ownership was far less restricted, than those rates are now.

[Eureka]

38. You're putting too much stock in Port Arthur

The "single tragic incident" you refer to was a catalyst to create an almost uniform set of gun laws across the country.

That event however did not really change Australian's attitude towards guns. They weren't considered something we had to have for personal defense before Port Arthur, and they aren't now.

Australia's gun laws and attitudes to guns were not the sole result of that event.

Disallowing guns for personal protection as a hysterical response to a single tragic incident is idiotic, both morally and statistically

Claiming Australia disallowed guns for personal protection to a single tragic incident is hysterical and idiotic, both morally and intellectually.

[MrBenchley]

18. Texas and Australia are about the same size,, population-wise

Texas has about 1,300 gun deaths a year, Australia averages fewer than 200.

According to the trigger-happy, it's Australia that has the gun problem.

[undeterred]

20. Well. Australia does not have a Bush to look up to.

Everyone rearranges the facts to suit their purposes.

[Nicole]

23. Do you have a link for that?

[MrBenchley]

33. For what?

If you want, you can look up Australia's population (20,0890,000 or thereabouts) and Texas (20,851.000) yourself.

[Nicole]

34. For the gun death numbers you posted

Of course I can look up the populations for myself, no need to tell me the obvious.

The gun death numbers you posted is what I was asking about. I did try to find them but I can't. I figured since you posted them, you were a better searcher than I.

I didn't think it was asking too much for you to share your source of info. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

35. Is that all?

Here's 1998...gun deaths have gone UP since then.....2,438 deaths

http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/agsfoundation/asp/gundeaths.asp?state=texas


Here's Australia...

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html


Since about 1997, the CDC has been foirbidden by the Republican Congress from collecting or publicizing any US statistics that might support the case for gun control.

[Nicole]

39. Thanks but the facts prove you wrong

Here's 1998...gun deaths have gone UP since then.....2,438 deaths

Texas gun deaths have gone DOWN since 1998 if your source, The Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, is correct.

My source is Texas Dept. of State Health Services, Vital Statistics 2002 annual report. I believe their numbers to be correct because I doubt if they have a biased agenda. Wouldn't you agree?

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/VSTAT/vs02/t18.shtm


Here is a chart I made with the stats, from the link I provided above, for easier comparison of the numbers.



Please note that the majority of those deaths were from self inflicted wounds, not from some bad man on the street gunning down innocent victims.

Please also note that Homicide doesn't differentiate between murder & self defense, reducing the number of innocent victims even further.

Not one of those years have the number of gun deaths "gone UP" since 1998 as you posted above that they did. Not only have they NOT gone up, they have yet to equal that number.


I do thank you for providing a link when I requested one. :thumbsup:

[MrBenchley]

41. Australia 200 gun deaths, Texas 2,300 gun deaths

and it's your contention that Australia has the gun problem? Ahahahahahahaha......

[Nicole]

42. I didn't say that, I said your numbers are wrong

and it's your contention that the facts don't matter? Ahahahahahahaha......

The facts I posted prove you wrong. Which I noticed you failed to acknowledge. Typical of one who posts false info. :eyes:

If you can't be bothered with the facts, I can't be bothered with you. Bye.

[MrBenchley]

43. Yeah, I understated what a fucking disaster Texas is....

And the downside for me of you flouncing away?....non-existent.

[derby378]

44. Welcome to the GAP

:popcorn:

[MrBenchley]

45. Gun-crazy Asshole Pavilion?

No thanks.

[Toots]

36. Well isn't it obvious that here in America violence has gone down with

more guns being available? :crazy: The world envies our lack of violence.

[ThomWV]

37. If Its Bullshit We're Looking for: Violent Crime Has Gone Up With Wages

So in order to reduce crime maybe we should lower the minimum wage.

[AusGail]

40. I have lived in Australia all my life

and I have not noticed any significant differences in crime rates over the years. Also, it would be an interesting statistic to find out if crimes involving guns were committed with guns legally purchased of if they were stolen from security guards etc.

Of course we have rapes, assaults and murders, but those crimes happen in all countries. Would it not be a better idea to ban firearms from everybody than to let everybody own firearms.

I have lived in the city and the in the regional areas and I'm not frightened to go anywhere.

[benEzra]

46. Until very recently, your gun laws weren't all that different from ours...

I have lived in Australia all my life and I have not noticed any significant differences in crime rates over the years. Also, it would be an interesting statistic to find out if crimes involving guns were committed with guns legally purchased of if they were stolen from security guards etc.

Until very recently, your gun laws weren't all that different from ours here in the USA, and even then your crime rates were much, much lower than ours.