For your information AND everybody else's
- Thread starter Pointer
- Start date
- Status
Well, I can't speak for any of the other statistics, but I can tell you that Australia's robbery stats have come back down to their pre-spike levels (which is why I really wish people would quit quoting it), and homicides are down below pre-ban levels. Assault, however, is enjoying a continuing cyclical rise in Australia (up-down, up-down, within each year, but each year's low and high are almost always both higher than the last year's low and high).
Wildalaska
Moderator
Ah yes, the old meaningless statistical email
WildhaventwedonethisbeforeAlaska
WildhaventwedonethisbeforeAlaska
Percentages in Australia dont mean that much when you look at the actual numbers.
http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2005/20051005.html
So if I said that firearms homicides were 3% from 2003-2005 that would mean an increase of about 1 death? How can you infer that firearms registration is causing an increase in firearms crime or is not working on the basis of so few deaths? The Percentages look good on a nice colored pie chart or a graph chart. We also know that looking at trends for a shorter time period will make the trend lines steeper...lol.
What I get from looking at the numbers is that firearms registration doesn't make a difference one way or the other. If no firearms registration had been passed in Australia I would bet the numbers would be about the same.
I do see that out of 53 death by a firearm 47 were with an unlicensed firearm and 50.88 were with an unregistered gun. Which leads me to believe we can say the laws are not stopping those who don't obey the law. We can also say that the gun control laws are not the cause of increased firearms crime in Australia, just that the gun control laws are as useful as teats on a boar hog.
http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2005/20051005.html
So if I said that firearms homicides were 3% from 2003-2005 that would mean an increase of about 1 death? How can you infer that firearms registration is causing an increase in firearms crime or is not working on the basis of so few deaths? The Percentages look good on a nice colored pie chart or a graph chart. We also know that looking at trends for a shorter time period will make the trend lines steeper...lol.
What I get from looking at the numbers is that firearms registration doesn't make a difference one way or the other. If no firearms registration had been passed in Australia I would bet the numbers would be about the same.
I do see that out of 53 death by a firearm 47 were with an unlicensed firearm and 50.88 were with an unregistered gun. Which leads me to believe we can say the laws are not stopping those who don't obey the law. We can also say that the gun control laws are not the cause of increased firearms crime in Australia, just that the gun control laws are as useful as teats on a boar hog.
applesanity
New member
There's actually a whole thread somewhere devoted to destroying the Australia stats - by both people who've studied statistics, and people with common sense. Search first.
As for the rest of the historical bits - if I dance around a bonfire while wearing feathers in my hair, and it starts raining, does it mean I started the rain? Just hypothetical here; my apologies to anyone who's native american.
Major fault with your arguments - correlation does not imply causality. Thanks for playing.
Prove that the gun control was a means and part of the plan for killing lots of people. Then you'll have something worthwhile.
As for the rest of the historical bits - if I dance around a bonfire while wearing feathers in my hair, and it starts raining, does it mean I started the rain? Just hypothetical here; my apologies to anyone who's native american.
Major fault with your arguments - correlation does not imply causality. Thanks for playing.
Prove that the gun control was a means and part of the plan for killing lots of people. Then you'll have something worthwhile.
JuanCarlos
New member
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that buyback back in 1996 or 1997 (I'm thinking 1997). Which means this was written in what, 1998? And that there would be something like 8 more years of statistics collected since then? That may or may not be interesting?
So we're necroposting chain letters now?
As for the stats themselves, let's start with this gem:
Australia's homicide rates are ridiculously low compared to ours, somewhere in the 2 per 100,000 or below range if I remember correctly. Which, combined with their small overall population (20M or so) means their overall number of homicides will be small (actual numbers I saw ranged from the high 200's to the high 300's).
A 3.2% increase in that range will mean a change in actual number that ranges from the low tens to single digits, depending what the number was the previous year. So not terribly significant. Single-year stats are next to useless when dealing with such small numbers, only trends really matter.
Overall the homicide rate in AUS was trending downward before the ban, and has continued to do so since.
So yeah, I'm not real impressed with a chain letter from a decade ago overall.
EDIT: Just in case anybody actually doubts what I said regarding both Australia's low homicide rate/number in general, or the trends, here would be the first link I found with the pertinent data. I can't find the other site I saw (also from the AUS government) that had all kinds of other fun numbers and graphs.
Last edited:
The POINT was that when the killing began... the disarmed people had no means of self-defense.
I was searching in my own way... if you want to provide a link to your ethereal "source"... "...people with common sense. Search first."
First they are not my arguments...
Furthermore, this is simply a way to smoke-screen the reality by covering it over with the non-sequiter.
This is well illustrated by the old saying...
If everytime a gun is used in a crime... someone is shot... it gives reasonable people a perfectly acceptible purpose in analyzing and/or searching for causality... This is what makes mankind different... intelligence!
Now back to the thread point...
If you can debunct... then do so.
If you can edify... then do so.
If you can stick to the subject, then by all means, do so... Please...
JuanCarlos
If you can find a link that can do this... please do...
Thanks for the link...
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi261t.html
Now that's sticking to the point! Thank you.
If you can find a link that can do this... please do...
I bet they got all of scrap metal prices and maybe even more...
Good points! Does anyone know the population figures for Australia?... and can you break it down to cities vs countryside? (Like blue states vs red cities, or red sates and blue cities.)
This is my purpose in asking for updated information...
Thanks for the link...
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi261t.html
Last edited:
I see no attribution to anyone else..
Can you provide a source? Your "source" is also "ethereal"
I note that most of these lines have "unable to defend themselves" but that seems a little over the top, doesn't it? Just as Gun-free zones certainly don't guarantee such, neither does banning them or take away all methods of defense.
I'm not going to argue with the point of your SPAM, merely your methods. When you provide detailed numbers, it is much preferred to source them.
I haven't made any claims to the contrary...
No, I cannot provide a source... I am asking for respectable TFL members to respectfully provide whatever sources they can.
That is, of course, obvious even to you...and ignoring my thread-start, and what I actually did say, cannot change that fact... and you don't even have to read the entire thread.
*sigh*..
I did debunk it on its face, which you, as usual, ignored.
Basically, by leaving those statements in you are implying that gun control actually works -- making guns illegal means that the ENTIRE populace is unarmed. And this seems in direct contradiction to what you are trying to say. . .
Overall, The problem with what you are doing (instead of finding facts and building up a document, you are asking for support of an existing document of facts that are over-simplified and difficult to support) is that unless you get support for every single point you have, you can't continue to use it. It is MUCH easier to come up with the facts first.
I did debunk it on its face, which you, as usual, ignored.
Basically, by leaving those statements in you are implying that gun control actually works -- making guns illegal means that the ENTIRE populace is unarmed. And this seems in direct contradiction to what you are trying to say. . .
Overall, The problem with what you are doing (instead of finding facts and building up a document, you are asking for support of an existing document of facts that are over-simplified and difficult to support) is that unless you get support for every single point you have, you can't continue to use it. It is MUCH easier to come up with the facts first.
Respectfully, you should have been clearer in indicating that in your OP, respectively.
applesanity
New member
Well that's just unfortunate, but it doesn't prove anything. Correlation does not imply causality. That's something you learning in logic class 101.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242885&highlight=australia
Bam! The tool is called "search." It's located on your top menu. It helps you search for stuff.
Actually, you're the one using the non-sequitur, because you don't even know what the phrase means.
This is what we like to call a "straw man" argument.
Have you noticed that of the 7 members who have replied, six are against you? I smell trolls. Thanks for playing. Lock, please.
Last edited:
JuanCarlos
New member
None, really.
The only reason I bothered to respond is because I see statistics regarding Australia thrown around quite a bit, and having conversed with many Australians on the issue and looked at a whole truckload of numbers on the subject I can say that 90% of what I hear from pro-gun folks regarding the Australian gun ban (the 1996 one, that is) and crime is complete crap.
Though, on the flipside 90% of what I've heard from the anti-gun side (including anti-gun Australians...which seems to be a majority of them) is crap as well.
Basically, the 1996 ban seems to have had a fairly negligible effect on crime overall, and especially so regarding homicides. So it's not a particularly useful example for either side...except maybe as some lukewarm support for maintaining the status quo here.
Even that's iffy, though, since comparing crime stats between countries with different socioeconomic factors, social programs, (to some extent) cultures, etc. is pretty useless.
Bulls**t
All I did was try to start a reasonable conversation and you have buried it in a lot of crap and personal attack...
ALL of which is non-sequitur, disjointed, fragmented and personal...
I repeat... my purpose was clear to any reasonable person...
I did not do a damned thing to deserve your personal jabs and cuts...
And you're right... there was only one among several who was friendly...
And if somebody had chosen to disagree in a friendly manner... well, who knows what those who don't already know everything might have learned...
I asked that you debunct any or all of it...I expected that you might offer some reason not to believe in any or all of it...not that you attack me for asking... or for the way I asked the questions...
I asked that you add to it, if possible... not that you turn it into a diatribe of what may, or may not, be wrong with the thread start or starter...
Bulls**t...
All I did was try to start a reasonable conversation and you have buried it in a lot of crap and personal attack...
ALL of which is non-sequitur, disjointed, fragmented and personal...
I repeat... my purpose was clear to any reasonable person...
I did not do a damned thing to deserve your personal jabs and cuts...
And you're right... there was only one among several who was friendly...
And if somebody had chosen to disagree in a friendly manner... well, who knows what those who don't already know everything might have learned...
I asked that you debunct any or all of it...I expected that you might offer some reason not to believe in any or all of it...not that you attack me for asking... or for the way I asked the questions...
I asked that you add to it, if possible... not that you turn it into a diatribe of what may, or may not, be wrong with the thread start or starter...
Bulls**t...
Last edited:
Your sig is so ironic.
Worst case in my pointing why I dislike your argument (as it attempts to demonstrate that gun control removes guns from the populace) is that this thread keeps being bumped to the top, giving it a better chance for people who you want to see it to see it.
But then you also asked for debunking and don't want to hear it. go figure.
Worst case in my pointing why I dislike your argument (as it attempts to demonstrate that gun control removes guns from the populace) is that this thread keeps being bumped to the top, giving it a better chance for people who you want to see it to see it.
But then you also asked for debunking and don't want to hear it. go figure.
applesanity
New member
It's spelled non sequitur. You really have to stop using that phrase because you don't even know what it means.
1. I believe the term you're looking for is "red herring." Not that any of us are throwing red herrings - it's just you. You are saying the rest of us are wrong because we haven't "debunked" anything, but this reply is itself a red herring. The issue is not about whether you're right; it's that you have a faulty argument.
2. For the third time, correlation does not equate to causality. I'm not giving you a sequitur or non-sequitur. I'm telling you that your argument, or the argument you found on some blog or email, is wrong. Just because you see the sun rise every day does not mean it will rise tomorrow. Just because the government wants to take away your guns does not mean it's planning to exterminate all dissidents.
3. The reason why so many people are against you (I wonder why) is because it's a matter of policing ranks. Even though you appear to be on our side, you are still not right. A bad argument that backs up a good cause is still a bad argument. You really need to stop making other rational gun enthusiasts look bad. Calm down. Instead of getting so defensive, try understanding what other TFL members are telling you.
1. I believe the term you're looking for is "red herring." Not that any of us are throwing red herrings - it's just you. You are saying the rest of us are wrong because we haven't "debunked" anything, but this reply is itself a red herring. The issue is not about whether you're right; it's that you have a faulty argument.
2. For the third time, correlation does not equate to causality. I'm not giving you a sequitur or non-sequitur. I'm telling you that your argument, or the argument you found on some blog or email, is wrong. Just because you see the sun rise every day does not mean it will rise tomorrow. Just because the government wants to take away your guns does not mean it's planning to exterminate all dissidents.
3. The reason why so many people are against you (I wonder why) is because it's a matter of policing ranks. Even though you appear to be on our side, you are still not right. A bad argument that backs up a good cause is still a bad argument. You really need to stop making other rational gun enthusiasts look bad. Calm down. Instead of getting so defensive, try understanding what other TFL members are telling you.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Not to mention he will eat the hands that feed him as well...
Gee the mention of hogs brings back alot of memories. But a story for another time.
- Status