Less Guns equals less gun related deaths, statistics don’t lie
General December 14th, 2006
The SMH reports on a significant statistical shift in gun related deaths in Australia after the introduction of stricter gun laws in Australia, and the gun buy back held at the same time.
Some readers may be surprised to learn that despite my libertarian capitalist leanings, I despise guns, and I’ve always thought that gun laws in the US where bizarre at best. Indeed, I’d positively note that the District of Columbia is currently challenging the definition under law of the Second Ammendment, arguing that it doesn’t allow every man and his dog in the US to own a gun, which is a positve.
But I digress, the statistics show a direct connection between gun ownership and gun related crimes.
Titled Australia’s 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides and a Decade without Mass Shootings, finds that in the 18 years before the gun buyback there were an average of 492 firearm suicides a year.
After the introduction of the buyback scheme, that figure dropped to 247 in the seven years for which reliable figures are available.
The only people who should own guns are the police, armed forces, legitimate sportsman or those who require guns for their work (such and Roo shooters, Vermin shooters (dogs, cats, rabbits etc.)). How any society can endorse gun ownership in the average home is beyond me. I do know, and do believe, that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but it does make it a fair bit harder when they don’t have easy access to a gun. Statistics don’t lie.
Comments
Trackbacks
- Gun and gun control - Page 2 - Volconvo Debate Forums
- Gun and gun control - Page 3 - Volconvo Debate Forums
December 15th, 2006 at 4:15 am
You are a dead wrong in your analysis. Crime is at an all time high in your country.
Your comment: “The only people who should own guns are the police, armed forces, legitimate sportsman or those who require guns for their work (such and Roo shooters, Vermin shooters (dogs, cats, rabbits etc.)). How any society can endorse gun ownership in the average home is beyond me.”
Common sense is beyond you. When the terrorists roam the streets, run and get your broom handle.
A man with a gun is a citizen. A citizen without a gun is a slave. You are slaves and you are too dense to realize it.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Enjoy your bondage, serf.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I was with you until you said “Statistics don’t lie.” I think you’ll find plenty of evidence of statistics that completely distort reality.
Maybe statistics don’t lie, but people using statistics can do a lot of damage.
December 17th, 2006 at 7:55 am
I think I’ll take Don Weatherburn’s comments as fairly accurate:
The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that while the two papers might seem to be in conflict, they were not.
“Both found that the rate of gun suicide declined faster after the gun buyback and neither found any significant difference in the rate of decline in gun homicide before and after the gun buyback,” he said.
Obviously from that graph gun deaths were dropping well before the laws, and it seems the laws did nothing to speed up that trend regarding homicide.
Not sure how you figure that the stats show a “direct relationship” - statistics 101 - correlation does not imply causation!
December 20th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Statistics don’t lie?! Very amusing.
That graph that you showed indicates almost no difference pre, and post-buyback. In both cases, the trend was downwards, with what seems to be the same slope. The drop at buyback seems to be the same size as a drop that occurred in the late 80’s.
I would think that statistically, you can’t infer anything from that graph, except that before buyback, the gun death rate was trending down, and after buyback, it was trending down at about the same rate.
Based on the slope of the pre-buyback trend, adding an extra 4 years would result in the same gun death rate as the buyback.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
statistics may not lie…but that says nothing about the people reporting those statistics!!
http://www.ic-wish.org/Baker%20and%20McPhedran%20Review%20and%20Critique%20of%20Chapman%20et%20al.pdf
February 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
The graph is what I like to refer to as “non consequential” To infer that based on lines sloping downward and to add secondary lines, that follow merely shows a trend, not a cause and effect relationship, in the pure sense that you would like. Your graph is not a “Case Closed” argument without digging deeper into the matrix of of the actual numbers.
Gun related death stats often cite suicide, death by cop, and accidental shootings. These three are dubiously cited in most gun stats, but only blur the real cause and effect of any simple graph for the use of any argument for and against the ownership of guns. A previous comment explains this. Gun related deaths were on the decline, but not any more than pre ban or post ban, merely on the decline, hence their is no way to support that any measure of gun control has had a positive relationship on the decline without having a dramatic decline in gun related deaths as opposed to just a declining death rate by gun. Your graph simply indicates two things. 1. gun related deaths before the ban were already on the decline, and 2. that those deaths after still maintained a solid rate, although declining. Not enough to make a case for the proposal of banning the ownership of all guns. If there were a dramatic space between two lines after the gun ban, then possibly the cause and effect relationship could be explained. There is not !!
Here in the United States, there is without a doubt NO cause and effect relationship between those city’s, states and county’s that have stricter gun laws, or total gun bans. In fact, Washington D.C. is the toughest gun control district in the United States, yet has more crime and gun related deaths than any other city in the entire United States. Where is the cause and effect relationship in Washington D.C. ?? The answer is simple, there is none !! Crime is deeper than guns. Unemployment, race relations, drug trafficing, poor parental skills, and the “NO HOPE” attitude of it’s citizens. Hence the reasons that gun related deaths often or almost alway’s have a cause and effect relationship with drugs, high school drop out rate, race relations, and a whole host of other social ills that plague the city.
I live in Kentucky. Arguably one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country and we’ve had ONE murder in the last 3 years in my county alone. That murder was a marital dispute due to infidelity. There have been NO gun related deaths as of January 1, 2007
The estimate here is that each house hold has 2.3 guns with a rise in gun purchases in the county of 23.4% each year since 2003. We have almost no gun related deaths, and suicides that have been reported this year are of drug overdose, or hanging. How is it that we can own more guns than the entire country of Australia in one county in Kentucky and have that few gun related deaths ? it’s easy. Socially, everyone, or almost every one is employed, have at least a high school education, we are predominatley white, are county churches are filled each sunday morning, be it Catholic, Protestant, or Baptish, and our schools have a no tolerance policy for drug abuse and crime. Socially, we are what I like to refer to as “God Fearing” fearing people, educated, financially stable, and almost all white.