The Australian Gun Control Experiment

[ncthorn]

I hate to bombard everyone with these posts, but the Daily Show thread got me thinking a little more on why Australia is so often cited as the prime example for gun control. Let me know what you think and be sure to share this information whenever necessary.

The Australian Gun Control Experiment | Modern Rifleman

 

[El-Cigarro]

I hate to bombard everyone with these posts, but the Daily Show thread got me thinking a little more on why Australia is so often cited as the prime example for gun control. Let me know what you think and be sure to share this information whenever necessary.

The Australian Gun Control Experiment | Modern Rifleman

I've heard for quite a while now that crime has gone up down there, since they disarmed the law abiding. "Gun Control" isn't about stopping Criminals.... It's about CONTROL....

 

[ncthorn]

I've heard for quite a while now that crime has gone up down there, since they disarmed the law abiding. "Gun Control" isn't about stopping Criminals.... It's about CONTROL....

Exactly. That said, it is alarming to see the rate at which violent crime has increased. I had assumed a much higher degree of ambiguity prior to looking at the statistics.

 

[VN Vet]

Yes, The Bad people want people control and not gun control. With the latter they have the first. Educated people know it will be much more difficult to get every Country of the World to agree to a Single World Government if there are enough firearms left for the Free World arm to mount a resistance.

The Free World will Mount a Resistance. Fore warned is fore armed.

Oath Keeper

 

[Bogan]

I hate to bombard everyone with these posts, but the Daily Show thread got me thinking a little more on why Australia is so often cited as the prime example for gun control. Let me know what you think and be sure to share this information whenever necessary.

The Australian Gun Control Experiment | Modern Rifleman

Here's an objective study:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/files/2013/01/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

 

[Bogan]

I hate to bombard everyone with these posts, but the Daily Show thread got me thinking a little more on why Australia is so often cited as the prime example for gun control. Let me know what you think and be sure to share this information whenever necessary.

The Australian Gun Control Experiment | Modern Rifleman

-

 

[ModernGunner]

Just proves what pro-2A keep saying - Criminals don't obey the law, and gun control against law-abiding citizens does nothing to mitigate crime.

As I did not see it specified, do the AIC stats include justifiable homicide, or is that filtered out?

Also apparently lacking appear to be stats for the +/- in burglary, home invasions, etc. These stats would be significant because citizens often use firearms when defending their homes, and probably more likely to use a long gun for home defense rather than outside the home for personal defense (where the citizen is more likely to carry a handgun than a long gun).

Factoring in those numbers, there may (or may not) be an even larger increase in the overall crime rate.

 

[ncthorn]

Here's an objective study:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/files/2013/01/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

"Firearm homicide and firearm suicide dropped substantially in both years, for a cumulative two-year drop in firearm homicide of 46% and in firearm suicide of 43%. Never in any two year period, from 1915-2004 had firearm suicide dropped so precipitously.3"

Based on the statistics I have from the AIC covering the same timeframe, I am having trouble with this claim. I do not have the suicide numbers at hand right now, but the official homicide numbers do not seem to support this claim.

And of course, the linked study does not discuss substitution of means. There is some compelling evidence with the AIC stats that deaths resulting from bladed weapons have increased in the post NFA era.

I'm not saying that the study is biased, but it does seem to have some potential areas of concern that need to be addressed. Further, it does not discuss a recent study performed by the University of Queensland that suggests the cost of the NFA has far outweighed the benefits.

 

[LarryC]

Here's an objective study:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/files/2013/01/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

Bogan, I am a fairly well educated person, especially in the field of statistics. How you or anyone else can cite a Harvard study as "objective" is beyond me. Yes they agreed that a US "buyback" would not be effective, but the other conclusions of the study is rife with their Liberal opinions - certainly not "objective".

Harvard is right in line with Peloci, Reid, the "mayors against gun violence", the New York times and Commiebomma as far as having an unbiased opinion. Statistics and studies are only as accurate as the compiler is honest and unbiased. Where there is a preconceived notion or an issue the compiler is trying to prove, unfavorable data is rejected and / or excused as not relevant.

Any study conducted by Harvard will by its very nature be contaminated. You might look into Taguchi methods as another study in statistics, one of several statistical methods of which I have been certified.
At this time, considering the comments you have made on this site I am wondering if you really are a second amendment supporter or a Troll!

 

[Bung]

And of course, the linked study does not discuss substitution of means. There is some compelling evidence with the AIC stats that deaths resulting from bladed weapons have increased in the post NFA era.

This. I can't express how much I hate it when someone argues gun control with me and cites areas that have lower gun deaths and ignore the total deaths of all means and violent crime. I've been told by several liberals that it doesn't matter if violent crime goes up, it only matters if violent gun crime goes down. Just how stupid are these people?