03-24-2018, 09:08 AM
PS. You also posted a lot of stats in your post dated 03/19/2018 : 15:39:58. No sources.
http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=24482&whichpage=9
So would like to see the source/s for that as well. There are several claims there but don't know where you got the data.
"Before I begin, I want to reiterate that my OP was not about being pro- or anti-gun control, but to try to show that you really can't compare with the United States a nation (Australia) having only 7% of the population of the U.S. and having a different history and culture.
"So you're saying that since 2014 the percentage of firearm-related murders has catapulted from 14% to over 50% ("a majority")?
I'd like to see a link for that, thanks."
A majority does not have to be over 50%. 38% is a majority over 37%.
[Note: In my text below, I'm using capital letters not to shout but because I find it easier than fiddling with html italics.]
In your research to prove me wrong, you must have seen the chart of Total Number of Gun Deaths. As I tried to point out in my OP, clearly this number has been declining BEFORE the 1997 gun-confiscation law. Using mean slope, I see two segments, from 1987 to 2005 when the number was 220, and from 2005 to 2016, where the slope is virtualy zero, or level. You can see that in 2016 the number of gun deaths actually increased.
Firearm homicides and suicides were falling from the mid-1980s onwards, so you could pick out any subsequent year and the AVERAGE firearm homicide and suicide rates after that year would be down compared to the AVERAGE before it.
The question is whether the rate of decline changed after the gun buyback law went into effect. But the DECLINE in firearm homicides and suicides actually slowed down after the buyback. Australia’s buyback resulted in almost 1 million guns being handed in and destroyed, but after that private gun ownership once again steadily increased and now exceeds what it was before the buyback.
In fact, since 1997 gun ownership in Australia grew over three times faster than the population (from 2.5 million to 5.8 million guns).
Gun-control advocates should have predicted a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides after the buyback, and then an increase as the gun ownership rate increased again. But the graph shows clearly there was no increase on average.
Having traveled extensively in Europe, did you notice that European countries such as Belgium, France, and the Netherlands have even stricter gun-control laws than Australia does, but their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States? During the Obama administration, the per capita casualty rate from shootings in the European Union was actually 27 percent higher than the U.S. rate. In Europe every mass public shooting has occurred where guns are banned.
Let's consider New Zealand. After 1997, both Australia and New Zealand experienced similar drops in mass murders, even though New Zealand had NOT altered its gun control laws. It would be just as misleading for gun-control critics to cite only New Zealand as it is for gun control advocates to cite Australia.
Let's consider Switzerland. I tried to convey the idea that Australia has a different culture. If the U.S. has solely a “gun problem” and not a culture problem, then Switzerland should be a slaughterhouse. There are more weapons per capita in Switzerland than any other western nation, and yet the Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the west.
Relying on Australia requires a misreading of the evidence, and requires that we ignore what has happened in all the other countries with strict regulations.
"People of African ancestry.
The number of African-Americans is a reason why the USA wants and needs so many guns? Please do explain at great detail, I'm not following this."
Surely you've seen the statistics of how these people commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
"I've been to Australia many times, and I've been to Europe, where they are far more "socialist" but you are using the word as some sort of insult."
Your misperception."
http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=24482&whichpage=9
So would like to see the source/s for that as well. There are several claims there but don't know where you got the data.
"Before I begin, I want to reiterate that my OP was not about being pro- or anti-gun control, but to try to show that you really can't compare with the United States a nation (Australia) having only 7% of the population of the U.S. and having a different history and culture.
"So you're saying that since 2014 the percentage of firearm-related murders has catapulted from 14% to over 50% ("a majority")?
I'd like to see a link for that, thanks."
A majority does not have to be over 50%. 38% is a majority over 37%.
[Note: In my text below, I'm using capital letters not to shout but because I find it easier than fiddling with html italics.]
In your research to prove me wrong, you must have seen the chart of Total Number of Gun Deaths. As I tried to point out in my OP, clearly this number has been declining BEFORE the 1997 gun-confiscation law. Using mean slope, I see two segments, from 1987 to 2005 when the number was 220, and from 2005 to 2016, where the slope is virtualy zero, or level. You can see that in 2016 the number of gun deaths actually increased.
Firearm homicides and suicides were falling from the mid-1980s onwards, so you could pick out any subsequent year and the AVERAGE firearm homicide and suicide rates after that year would be down compared to the AVERAGE before it.
The question is whether the rate of decline changed after the gun buyback law went into effect. But the DECLINE in firearm homicides and suicides actually slowed down after the buyback. Australia’s buyback resulted in almost 1 million guns being handed in and destroyed, but after that private gun ownership once again steadily increased and now exceeds what it was before the buyback.
In fact, since 1997 gun ownership in Australia grew over three times faster than the population (from 2.5 million to 5.8 million guns).
Gun-control advocates should have predicted a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides after the buyback, and then an increase as the gun ownership rate increased again. But the graph shows clearly there was no increase on average.
Having traveled extensively in Europe, did you notice that European countries such as Belgium, France, and the Netherlands have even stricter gun-control laws than Australia does, but their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States? During the Obama administration, the per capita casualty rate from shootings in the European Union was actually 27 percent higher than the U.S. rate. In Europe every mass public shooting has occurred where guns are banned.
Let's consider New Zealand. After 1997, both Australia and New Zealand experienced similar drops in mass murders, even though New Zealand had NOT altered its gun control laws. It would be just as misleading for gun-control critics to cite only New Zealand as it is for gun control advocates to cite Australia.
Let's consider Switzerland. I tried to convey the idea that Australia has a different culture. If the U.S. has solely a “gun problem” and not a culture problem, then Switzerland should be a slaughterhouse. There are more weapons per capita in Switzerland than any other western nation, and yet the Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the west.
Relying on Australia requires a misreading of the evidence, and requires that we ignore what has happened in all the other countries with strict regulations.
"People of African ancestry.
The number of African-Americans is a reason why the USA wants and needs so many guns? Please do explain at great detail, I'm not following this."
Surely you've seen the statistics of how these people commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
"I've been to Australia many times, and I've been to Europe, where they are far more "socialist" but you are using the word as some sort of insult."
Your misperception."