The Truth About Gun Control In Australia

[CO Liberal]

From the Snopes Web Site. - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.

Status: False.

<more>

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm

[RobertSeattle]

1. Hey - don't let the facts get in the way of a good Gun Control Flame War

:evilgrin:

I hate to say it, but aren't we about due to some nut case with a couple of guns to kill about a dozen people?

[Booger]

2. ok

and the crime rate will go down by 1 if someone invades my home.
Where the LEGAL gun is.
Where the FAMILY is.
1 less home invasion. 1 less crime.

[La_Serpiente]

3. 1 more gun

1 more potential to kill

[slackmaster]

5. Or not

n/t

[Booger]

7. exactly

and this is bad because of.......?

the potential to kill is exaclty what it is all about.

So, someone who invades my home, with the possible intention of causing harm to my family deserves the benefit of the doubt?

[LibLabUK]

9. Woah...

"and the crime rate will go down by 1 if someone invades my home.
Where the LEGAL gun is.
Where the FAMILY is.
1 less home invasion. 1 less crime.

DAMN, the death penalty for breaking and entering.... not even Iran has that.

Wouldn't announcing your intention to kill a burglar be pre-meditation? (I'm no lawyer, jus' wondering).

[jhfenton]

10. "the death penalty"

I have two observations.

1) The "death penalty" is a state-sanctioned premeditated killing, not a spontaneous exercise of self defense.

2) As I do have firearms in my home, both locked up in a safe and on my person, I have considered what would happen if someone invaded my home and threatened my family. It is a personal decision that must be considered in advance. If you are not prepared to use a firearm to defend yourself, you either shouldn't own one, or should leave it in the safe. There's no pre-meditated intent to kill, rather an intent to stop an intruder and protect my family. I would certainly hope that no one, including the intruder would be killed, but home invaders -- as distinguished from burglars who strike when homes are empty -- are typically rather dangerous and violent individuals. I'm not obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Booger]

12. thank you

being as I'm at work and didn't get a chance to respond, thank you for saying exactly what I would say.

[iverglas]

16. nope

"The 'death penalty' is a state-sanctioned premeditated killing,
not a spontaneous exercise of self defense."

As practised in the US, the death penalty is a state-sanctioned premeditated killing. And that's what the expression means in that context. It just isn't the only thing it means.

But "penalties" can indeed be exacted by agents other than states. The library exacts a penalty if I return a book late. It might even call it a "fine".

The penalty for ringing my doorbell at midnight might be that you would have to hear me shout obscenities at you. That's a penalty, exacted by me, and you don't get any due process. The penalty for not paying my bill is that you have to pay interest. Individuals, in civilized societies, are not generally permitted to impose penalties involving deprivations of liberty or physical harm. It looks like the penalty for the young man who rang that accountant fellow's doorbell the other day in the News thread may have been death. A penalty exacted by the homeowner for annoying him. Not a penalty we tend to condone, that one.

The difference between penalties exacted by the state and penalties exacted by non-state agents is that the state must afford due process before exacting the penalty.

If the death penalty is exacted by the state, it's called an "execution", state-sanctioned being kinda implied. If the death penalty is exacted by a non-state agent, it's generally called an "extra-judicial execution". It's still death, and it's still a penalty -- if only for annoying someone it would have been wiser not to annoy.

State-sanctioned execution and "spontaneous acts of self-defence" are simply NOT the only categories into which the killing of one person by another may fall, as we all know. So I think that whatcha got here is one of them false dichotomies.


"I'm not obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt."

Nope. But in civilized, rights-respecting societies, you only get to use such force as is necessary to avert the threat to yourself that you reasonably perceive, and you are obligated to avail yourself of whatever alternative to killing them may be reasonably available.


Now, in response to LLUK's Q:

Wouldn't announcing your intention to kill a burglar be pre-meditation?

... doing just that might in fact amount to availing one's self of a reasonable alternative to using force -- threatening to kill an assailant or trespasser, especially if the threat seems feasible, might succeed in ending the assault or trespass. In other instances, where the threat to use force against a trespasser was made *instead of* availing one's self of another reasonable alternative for avoiding harm to one's self, it might indeed go some way toward rebutting a self-defence justification. In a civilized, rights-respecting society one really just does not get to assault or kill someone because s/he didn't do what s/he was told.

.

[LibLabUK]

22. Thanks

Thank you for such a comprehensive answer (as always).

One further question, following on as it were.

If I were to say now "If a man breaks into my house, I'll kill him" and then a man breaks into my house and I kill him, would my stating my intention to kill a man breaking into my house make any difference under the law?

The reason I ask is this is one of the things that the infamous darling of the gun-rights crowd, Tony Martin, did... although he also shot the teenager in the back as he was running away, for which he was rightfully punished.

[iverglas]

45. I think

"If I were to say now 'If a man breaks into my house, I'll kill him' and then a man breaks into my house and I kill him, would my stating my intention to kill a man breaking into my house make any difference under the law?"

... what it might well do (if it was plain that his statement was not really a figure of speech) is undermine his credibility when he claimed that the shooting was justified as having been committed in self-defence. But that justification would still have to be assessed on its merits. His prior statement wouldn't mean that any particular shooting was *not* in self-defence. People who cry wolf do sometimes see wolves.

.

[jhfenton]

44. "Agreed"

"But in civilized, rights-respecting societies, you only get to use such force as is necessary to avert the threat to yourself that you reasonably perceive, and you are obligated to avail yourself of whatever alternative to killing them may be reasonably available."

Agreed. That's why I explained that based on the characteristics of home invaders, deadly force would probably be necessary. It is reasonable to believe that someone breaking into my occupied home, who does not immediately run away upon discovering my presence, poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to my family.

If I'm on the street and can run away, or if I can otherwise defend myself, then I would not resort to deadly force. That's one reason I also carry OC spray. It gives me another option for dealing with an unarmed attacker other than fisticuffs or flight.

[iverglas]

49. not agreed

"It is reasonable to believe that someone breaking into my occupied home, who does not immediately run away upon discovering my presence, poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to my family."

That kind of blanket assumption just can't be made when it comes to justifying killing someone.

My home was entered twice in six months, a couple of years ago, when I was home. I was upstairs at the time, having come home just for a couple of minutes and left the door unlocked, as Michael Moore likes to point out we are wont to do up here. Didn't even notice my purse was missing until a couple of days later, the first time.

The cops let me know a few months later that they got the guy who had done it -- I don't know exactly why they knew it was him, maybe because this was such a pattern for him in this particular neighbourhood, but although they did, they apparently didn't have the necessary evidence.

He was exactly what I would have expected him to be: a broken down cokehead. Broken down cokeheads in my part of the world don't carry guns when they go from house to house checking for unlocked doors and untended purses. Of course, one reason they don't carry guns is the scarcity and thus expense of the guns that might be available to them and the effort it would likely take to acquire one. And one reason for that scarcity (note that I say "one reason") might reasonably be considered to be the relatively strict controls on firearms acquisition and possession here.

Anyhow. Had I come upon him looking for my purse, he would have presented virtually no threat to my security. None. He would have heard me coming, in all likelihood, and left. In fact, that's exactly what he did do when he tried the unlocked door next door, where my father was staying in an upstairs apt I own, and was met by my father calling down "is that you?" when he heard the door open. He beat it rapidly.

Yes, you did indeed say "who does not immediately run away". But not immediately running away really is *not* the same thing as presenting a reasonably apprehended risk to life or limb that cannot reasonably be avoided otherwise than by using deadly force. A drunken teenager might not immediately run away; a more serious criminal might run away once faced with three determined though unarmed home occupants.

And yes, you do have to worry a little more about your trespassers being armed than I do. To which, all I can say is: and whose fault is that?

.

[Spoonman]

21. It would properly

be refered to as premeditated sucide, if they kicked in my door!

[Booger]

24. AHAHAHAHA.

Good one.
This is a difference of mindset.
No matter what the legality, I would still defend my family in this situation.
Some wouldn't view it the same.
Although I'd bank that they might change their tune if they were tied to a chair and beaten by someone who busted in.

[slackmaster]

4. Comparing percentage changes on small absolute numbers

A standard statistical deception practiced widely by both extreme sides in the ongoing great debate over gun control.

Neither side has a monopoly on the truth.

[CO Liberal]

8. And The Pro-Gun Side Is So Far From The Truth......

....that the truth looks like a dot on the horizon.

[jhfenton]

11. "Debating Style"

Have you've been taking debating lessons from MrBenchly?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

13. Well at least the pro-gun side can see their dot.

Unlike the anti-gunners.

[CO Liberal]

14. All I Have to Do is Look Down

It's right at my feet.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

15. Dont mistake bullshit for the truth.

Id check what is at your feet very carefully.

[MrBenchley]

28. He doesn't

He knows "gun rights" is bullshit

[Character Assassin]

41. Apparently about as much as you know grammar

Don't quit your day job, Ace.

[iverglas]

58. ah yes

"The Brothers Karamozov" are a good book, are it?

May I quote you?

Don't quit your day job.

.

[slackmaster]

19. Is that the response I deserve for trying to be fair and balanced?

I don't believe so.

Perhaps CO is indeed taking lessons from MrBenchley:

- If the other side offers peaceful cooperation, ATTACK!

- If the other side admits to excesses on the part of some of its members, ATTACK!

- If the other side provides hard evidence to back up its position, CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND ATTACK!

- If none of the above works, SWITCH TO PERSONAL ATTACK!

:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

26. I Was Not Attacking - I Was Stating an Opinion

[slackmaster]

29. My opinion is that your opinion is more biased than mine

You say only one side is full of shit.

I say both sides are full of shit.

Which viewpoint seems more fair? Which SOUNDS more reasonable?

[CO Liberal]

33. Mine, Of Course!!!

:-)

[MrBenchley]

6. Gee, the RKBA crowd is lying....AGAIN

Who is surprised? Not me.

[Stilgar]

25. Prove ME wrong

Come on, show me where, except for saying murder rate instead of Violent Crime, where I lied. I have cited all my sources. Back to the original producer of the data. You just keep spouting people are lying.

Show me that my sources are lying.

[Stilgar]

63. BENCHLEY, where are you

I am waiting for you to show me my lies. I am waiting for an intelligent post from you, describing what you profess to be lies. I have seen other requests from other people with short or no replies. You do have proof dont you?

[MrBenchley]

66. Be sure and hold your breath

while I bother with this Australian bloodbath horseshit..

[Stilgar]

17. Current numbers for Australia

RATE PER 100,000 POPULATION Australia 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01

Homicide and related offences 5.6 n.a. 5.3 5.1 5.3 5.4
Murder 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.6
Attempted murder 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.4
Manslaughter 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2
Driving causing death(a) 1.9 n.a. 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.3
Assault 623.5 672.2 699.0 709.2 724.2 782.9
Sexual assault 79.4 77.5 76.6 74.5 82.3 86.4
Kidnapping/abduction 2.6 3.0 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.9
Robbery 89.4 115.0 127.1 119.4 121.8 137.1
Armed robbery 34.2 48.9 57.9 49.9 49.5 57.0
Unarmed robbery 55.3 66.1 69.2 69.5 72.3 80.0
Blackmail/extortion 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.8
Unlawful entry with intent 2,196.2 2,276.2 2,319.5 2,195.7 2,241.7 2,246.9
Property theft 1,714.6 1,795.4 1,812.9 1,705.8 (b)n.a. 1,677.6
Other 481.6 480.8 506.6 489.9 (b)n.a. 569.3
Motor vehicle theft(c) 671.4 702.7 702.7 684.2 725.2 722.0
Other theft 2,850.0 2,866.4 3,008.9 3,235.2 3,556.8 3,607.5

Gone Down/no change: overall homicide (murder-driving stats added), murder(-.1), manslaughter(no change), Driving causing death, property theft
Gone up: Attempted murder, Assult(huge jump), well everything else has gone up.

[Withergyld]

18. Link?? n/t

.

[Stilgar]

20. link to Australias own statistics

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/e93fa3cc3d9bc5c6ca256cae001052a3!OpenDocument

[slackmaster]

23. Interesting stats

Murder rate low and stady.

Assault and burglary rates climbing steadily.

No obvious sign of "success" or "failure" for gun control.

If restricting honest peoples' choices has no significant benefit, then why do it?

[CO Liberal]

27. And Conversely, If More Guns Do NOT Equal Less Crime......

....why have more guns?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

31. When in doubt, wheel out the old Straw Man

I have never said more guns equal less crime.

I have ALWAYS maintained that neither more guns nor fewer guns has a significant effect on crime.

If restricting peoples' choices does not do any GOOD, then the restrictions are BAD.

[iverglas]

40. talk about your straw folk

It's just the same old, same old, one.

"I have ALWAYS maintained that neither more guns nor fewer guns has a significant effect on crime."

And sigh, Australia's restrictions on firearms possession WERE NEVER INTENDED to have any effect on "crime" other than homicides committed with firearms not in the furtherance of the commission of some other crime.

Why doesn't someone just give us a link to Australia's climate data and tell us that outlawing firearms has not caused a reduction in rainfall. Or a reduction in shark attacks, or a reduction in unemployment rates ...

.

[slackmaster]

46. You're trying too hard to read between the lines

And sigh, Australia's restrictions on firearms possession WERE NEVER INTENDED to have any effect on "crime" other than homicides committed with firearms not in the furtherance of the commission of some other crime.

I've never said otherwise. But while we're on the subject, if murders and robberies by gun are replaced by murders and robberies by knife, public safety hasn't really improved.

[iverglas]

52. and if you had some evidence

... or even decent argument to establish that "murders ... by gun are replaced by murders ... by knife", I assume that you'd present it.

A mere similarity in total numbers between the two scenarios simply does not prove a substitution effect, you know.

People may switch from margarine to butter if butter becomes exorbitantly expensive, with total butter & margarine sales remaining the same. But people who like butter and hate margarine may simply stop buying butter. At the same time, other people may start eating margarine who previously didn't eat either butter or margarine, particularly if someone presents them with some reason for doing so, like maybe it will improve their social lives. (Advertising; who can predict?) We'd never know unless we asked a whole lot of them.

Maybe you can show that at least a chunk of the people who committed non-firearms homicides in Australia in the last couple of years had firearms previously, or would have had firearms but for the ban, or tried to get a firearm but had to settle for a rock ... . Maybe you can't.

Why you included "robberies" in that sentence I quoted, I just don't know, unless you're resurrecting the straw individual you just claimed not to have been employing.

.

[slackmaster]

54. Where did I ever make such a claim about Australia?

I didn't say that such a substitution had occurred, merely that if that was the case it would not indicate an improvement in public safety.

But since you seem to be interested in the topic I did a quick search and found this:

"Between 1989 and the buyback in 1996 there were six mass killings (four or more victims killed within a few hours) in Australia in which a gun was the murder weapon. Since 1996, there have been none."

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5215464,00.html

All well and good if one accepts that myopic definition of success.

However, it seems that perhaps some of those deaths from "mass killings" may have been replaced (note I said "may have", not meaning to imply any kind of certainty) by deaths in events where up to three people have been killed within a few hours (whatever that means), or deaths in events where four or more people were killed in more than a few hours, that perhaps one could not reasonably claim that Australians are now less likely to be murdered than they were in 1996. Given that the rate of murder and related offenses was 5.6 per 100,000 in 1996 (an exceptionally bad year) and 5.4 in 2001, I would question whether the difference is statistically significant. It's certainly not monotonically decreasing.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/e93fa3cc3d9bc5c6ca256cae001052a3!OpenDocument

[malkia]

68. Is it effective?

They spend millions of dollars with 0 (zero) results. They restricted the rights of the law-abiding citizens. Their murder rate is the same like before.
Can you see ANY benefit from these restrictions?
Oh, yeah! Criminals have much safer job now.

[Stilgar]

35. or why ban them

"....why have more guns?"
People like them and for some reason think it is thier right to have them.

So the real question is...
If more guns causes no gain in crime, and less guns causes no gain in crime, why ban them?

[MrBenchley]

32. 306 murders in a country the size of Texas

If Texas ever had as few as 306 murders in a year, it would be a miracle.

[demsrule4life]

34. Australia is the size of Texas?

I take it geography wasnt one of your best subjects.

[Stilgar]

36. I guess

Maybe he thinks they live in an area the size of texas and dont really go into that "outback" part.

[iverglas]

37. or maybe

He was referring to the size of the country's population, not to the size of the country's territory.

I mean, that being a comparison that would actually be relevant to the discussion.

But somehow, I think everybody knew that.

If not, of course, I despair.

But then, I also despair at anyone pretending not to know it ...

.

[MrBenchley]

39. If everybody didn't know that

They're probably dumb enough to believe what Larry Pratt writes about himself.

[Superfly]

42. You're just happy that iverglas saved your ass.

The "size" of Texas, indeed. Might you have not said "population the size of Texas" or "population of Texas" or "number of people in Texas". No, you said "size of Texas" and I truly believe that you were refering to geographic area.

But, thank Jeebus for iverglas. She saved your ass.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[demsrule4life]

I truly believe that you are a smart guy

:)

[Superfly]

51. Beautious!

:toast:

[MrBenchley]

53. Yeah, but dems

I have to consider the source...

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Superfly]

56. Couldn't have said it better myself

"... in the world would be so moronic as to even think of drawing a comparison between the murder rates found in two jurisdictions based on the comparability of their territories."

My thoughts, exactly.

[Stilgar]

61. Or he could compair both

The population size with geography, and he might make some sense. But compairing populations of a nation that is HUGE to a state is an argument a kid would make. Oh right we are talking about Benchly here, the king of pointless posts.

[demsrule4life]

43. Or maybe

he should of said, 306 murders in a country with roughly the same population as Texas. That would be relevant to the discussion.

[MrBenchley]

50. Gee, dems...

So now that we've seen that WAS what I said, it shows what a pantload this "Australian bloodbath " claim by the RKBA crowd truly is.

[iverglas]

57. hard to say

"he should of said, ..."

I couldn't possibly guess what anyone "should of" said, since the concept eludes me.

I should have thought that everybody should have understood the damn thing. I should have thought that anyone who claimed not to have understood it would have been so embarrassed at this point by claiming to be that dumb that s/he would have gone silent.

But that's just what I would have done. Not that I would ever have said anything so dumb in the first place.

.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

47. Are the two areas the same demographically?

Do they have the same socio-economic-racial mixes?

If not, any comparison is nothing more than a strawman, and worthless.

[Stilgar]

60. I knew what he meant, it was still a stupid observation

It was just a bad compairison, written poorly, and made me laugh.

[MrBenchley]

38. 20 million people in each

[Stilgar]

59. WOW, too bad those 20 million are spread out over a CONTINENT

People are spread all over Australia, compairing the two is silly.

The real trick would be constricting Australia to the size of texas and murders not happen more often.

But you knew that didnt you. You just wanted to make as flimsy a compairison as possible. And didnt even do a good job at it.

[slackmaster]

62. And connect Australia to a populous third-world country

With a corrupt government like Mexico's.

Add rampant drug smuggling and a significant population of illegal aliens, plus the levels of poverty found among the working class in Texas.

Yeah, Australia and Texas are pretty much the same.

:smoke:

[iverglas]

65. do keep trying

USAmerican exceptionalism all the way, eh?

Over 23% -- nearly a quarter -- of Australia's population was born outside Australia.


http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=72

6.3 percent of the population was born in Asia, North Africa, or the Middle East.

With more individuals born outside English-speaking countries, 15 percent of the population now speaks languages other than English at home. The most commonly spoken languages are now Chinese, Italian, Greek, and Arabic.

... Australia's growing diversity is most evident in Sydney, Australia's largest city, which has a population of over 3.4 million. <oh look, 1/6 of the population in that one city; pretty damn "spread out", I'd say.> Its economic position ensures that it is the major Australian destination for long-term migrants, 7.2 percent of whom arrived after 1996. It is also the nation's most diverse city. One third of its population (33.5 percent) are foreign-born, with 10.4 percent from Asia and another 3.1 percent from North Africa and the Middle East.

... Over a quarter (27.3 percent) of all Sydneysiders speak a language other than English at home. The most common are Chinese (6 percent) and Arabic (4.3 percent). As part of this greater linguistic diversity, Sydney is also the state capital with the highest proportion (6 percent) of its population not fluent in English.

Fewer Sydneysiders refer to having Australian (28.8 percent) or Anglo-Celtic (39.2 percent) ancestry than for the nation as a whole. More, however, report Southern and Eastern European (14.4 percent) as well as Asian (14.5 percent) and Middle Eastern (5.3 percent) ancestry. Another important dimension of Sydney's diversity is that it has the largest Indigenous population in the country (31,174), which makes up one percent of its population.

Australia may be an island ... but it's a lot closer than Texas for people fleeing countries "with a corrupt government like", oh, the Taliban's Afghanistan. And there's that pesky Aboriginal population, and how prone it is to being poor.

Texas's unemployment rate was 6.5% last month: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2003/10/13/daily32.html
Australia's was 6% in June:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s878619.htm

No, I'm not saying that the demographics of Australia are comparable to Texas. I'm saying that Australia is not an inbred, white-bread, comfy anglo-saxon haven that has somehow managed to avoid the challenges that come with diversity and economic difficulty.

But now that you mention it ... are Mexicans actually more murderous than Murricans? Or than the Asian immigrants to Australia? (Or is it that Murricans kill Mexicans more often than Australians kill their immigrants?)

And if Texas's "demographic" problems are the reason its homicide rate is so much higher than Australia's ... how exactly does adding a few million more guns to the mix help?

.

[iverglas]

64. talk about yer silly "compair"isons

"People are spread all over Australia, compairing the two is silly."

And: who looks like an idiot now?

Yeah, a few million people really do live in central Australia. It's so pleasantly moderate and the land so fertile there, after all.

Cripes.

There are indeed demographic differences between Australia and Texas. I'm afraid that people being spread all over Australia doesn't happen to be one of them.






.

[Stilgar]

30. A Survey asking the people about crimes involving 17 nations

This is asking the people about crime in thier lives. These crimes may or may not have been reported to the police (official figures). Strangly Australia was worst and the UK second...

A summary
http://www.minjust.nl/b_organ/wodc/publicaties/rapporten/pubrapp/ob187.htm

The Appendix from where the summary was taken just in case you think the summary is lying.
http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/app4.pdf

[FlashHarry]

67. Locking

DU Rules: 2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.

FlashHarry
DU Moderator