Firearm homicide USA -vs- Australia.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Would Australian style gun Laws 'save' American Lives?
Should the USA adopt the Australian gun Laws?

The example of the 'Australian gun laws' are raised too often for my liking, mostly due to the pure lies surrounding not only the gun buy-back (it wasnt the quoted number of semi-auto assault weapons, neither handguns but mostly non semi auto 22 rimfire and break action shotguns) coupled with the hugely significant lack of facts to prove this most disgusting disarming and theft of our gun rights had ANYTHING to do with the modest reduction of firearm homicide, and although there was a relatively significant reduction in firearm suicide, there is absolutely no proof that the overall suicide rate reduced on account of the laws. Indeed the firearm suicide numbers have about halved, from 384 during 96, HOWEVER, the overall suicide numbers have increased by 20% over that period to 2861– this is the epidemic that the gun grabbers are disturbingly silent about.

It is historic fact that the trends in firearm suicide AND firearm homicide in Australia were established WELL before 96, and certainly well before October 97 when the buy back ended and all the terrible daaaangerous single shot 22 rimfires, and so many of old pop's hammer guns were thankfully removed from the powder keg suburbs of the Leafy East of Melbourne, along with other notoriously 'violent' locales of Suburban Australia.....

When these retarded hoplophobes refer to the reduction and account them to the buy-back and their removal from circulation.... WHY then didnt the firearm suicide and firearm homicide fall to ZERO or near enough to zero during 1998, by this time all the guns, or at least most of them had supposedly been removed....

What about the USA? Each time there is a shooting.... an unfortunate reality of our modern society, that the USA does NOT have a monopoly on, we hear that SOMETHING has too be done, and the standard line of “lets look at the Australian example” is repeated........ which I think is ludicrous, for the above reasons in addition to this point, that most have either missed, or conveniently hid from the discourse;

Normally statistic don't lie, so referring to FBI & DOJ published data as well as ABS published data a couple of years before 'our' PAM laws were rammed up our, sorry, down our throats- then the recent data;

Firearm Homicide in USA 1993: 18,253 (*1)
Firearm Homicide in USA 2013: 8,454 (*2)

So over 20 Years, in the USA the firearm homicides numbers have reduced by 53%. Alternatively, considering the population increased over 20years from 259.9m to 316.5m, a homicide rate reduction of 62%! (7.02/100k population down to 2.67)

That is, to say the least - significant.... Imagine if they had have adopted our laws when we did. But before we jump the gun, pun intended... we must look at our example, over the same period, before PAM and to recent;

Firearm Homicide in AUS 1993: 64 (that is sixty-four) (*3)
Firearm Homicide in AUS 2013: 35 (thirty-five) (*4)

So our comparison reduction is ummm 45%

That doesnt sound right.... but little jonnie saved us he did... didnt he?

Never believe anything you think.


(*1)
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

(*2)
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... 9-2013.xls

(*3)
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] ... enDocument

(*4)
refer sheet 1.1, lines 1849+1850+1851
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscrib ... (australia).xls&3303.0&Data%20Cubes&E3EE5BF4A4CB883FCA257E18000F8D1A&0&2013&31.03.2015&Latest

[Heckler303]

Very well posted Genesis. Excellent job.


To add also, Drmaudio did his own research similar to what you've come up with here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4WtBHa_Y9U

[on_one_wheel]

Well written Genesis93

I hope you share those facts with the anti's

I'm totally sick to death of people pulling the " we don't want to be like America card "

According to your research, yes we do want to be like them , regardless of which side of the fence you stand.

I'm pretty sure if you remove one or two of the USA states ( perhaps the one's with the toughest firearms laws) you'd actually get an even better result.

[Download]

IF you redo the numbers with overall homicide instead of firearms homicide it will probably be more telling.

[<<Genesis93>>]

I had a look at that video Heckler, interesting the reduction is exactly the same as my figure, 53%

I'm tired of the ill informed "we dont want to be like America ".....the national homicide rate is around 4 per 100k, compare to our rate of 1/100k. The violence relates a lot to the drug and pop a cap in yo ass gang culture and other organised/disorganised crime that we either do NOT have, or at least not to the tremendous levels that are found in some US cities. The majority of victims are young, and as I recall blacks are over represented in by a factor of 4 or so compare to their proportion in the overall population (I worked it out some time ago in another thread)...

Some states have similar homicide rates to Australia, at least 1 state has a lower rate, while many have extraordinarily high rate.....

[Heckler303]

The majority of victims are young, and as I recall blacks are over represented in by a factor of 4 or so compare to their proportion in the overall population (I worked it out some time ago in another thread)...

Slightly related:

[GLS_1956]

I don't want to get into any racial arguments but I'll point out that whites are victims of white criminals violence more than they are victims of blacks and that the same holds true for there being more black on black crime. Case in point my brother was robbed at gun point and the robber was a white guy. My brother now has a carry permit by the way.

Another thing to remember that when your read the homicide statistics that those numbers include justifiable homicides as well. The cop shooting the knife wielding junkie or the woman preventing herself from being raped are in the same total includes the psychopath that preys on the helpless.

[Title_II]

A few notes.

The US NON-FIREARM homicide rate is greater than Australia's. What are the anti's going to do about that? Almost half of murders in the US do not involve guns.

"gun violence" term came into vogue around 2000 when antis realized they had the problem that murder rates in the US were becoming comparable to Canada and Europe. Speaking of which,

If you visit the US tomorrow, your chance of being murdered is LESS than if you visited Canada. Blacks in isolated areas are responsible for half of all murders in the US, despite being 12% of the population. Hispanic gangs mop up another double digit percentage in the same areas.

Obama, the most anti-gun president ever, broke the law and let the CDC commission a study on "gun violence" in the US. Obama's people concluded that civilians use guns in the US probably 75 times more often to prevent violent felonies than to commit them, or, at a minimum, more often than not. I've posted his capstone report here several times.

The US ranks 5th on mass shootings per capita with less than 100 per year out of a country of about 350 million compared to Western Europe and Australia.

The US ranks about 200th ( I forget the number) in "gun deaths" among recognized countries.

Go ahead, get rid of all our guns (impossible). What do you get? Cut the murder rate in half? Or make it go up? There's the rub, even ignoring that our guns prevent more crime than they cause, our non-gun murder rates won't go down.

[<<Genesis93>>]

I don't want to get into any racial arguments but I'll point out that whites are victims of white criminals violence more than they are victims of blacks and that the same holds true for there being more black on black crime. Case in point my brother was robbed at gun point and the robber was a white guy. My brother now has a carry permit by the way.

Another thing to remember that when your read the homicide statistics that those numbers include justifiable homicides as well. The cop shooting the knife wielding junkie or the woman preventing herself from being raped are in the same total includes the psychopath that preys on the helpless.

Nothing about blaming particular races..... these states are clearly divided by the US agencies between Black / White / Hispanic, and also Asian I believe.... its an indisputable fact, that Blacks (what the PC brigade, but not the govt call African American) are over represented in violent crime, even if the majority of perpetrators in a particular criminal description are white, if there are more than the corresponding population%, then theyre over represented ...

These US stats do indeed include non-negligent acts, the Law enforcement contribution is in the realm of 400 deaths (which itself surprisingly equates to the total Australian rate for Firearm homicide)
The Australian stats do not include death by cop which is generally between 1 and 10 according to official figures with a 20yr average of about 5 per year as REPORTED...

[<<Genesis93>>]

Title, the firearm murder proportion is quite steady at around 70% give or take over the years

non-firearm homicide doesnt exist in the minds of these simpletons.... just like non-firearm suicide, they have zero concern even though firearm homicide is effectively negligible and statistically insignificant, not 'insignificant'....

You must take care when quoting mass-shooting, its a term that should NOT EVER be used in this context as it is related to inuries NOT death... if someone uses a firearm and several 3 /4/5 (depending on the definition of 'mass' used on the day) people are injured - not necessarily killed - then its a mass SHOOTING.....

Then look at the School mass shooting stats - injuries within X00 feet of the school grounds, not necessarily a death, not necessarily anywhere near a school....

[Title_II]

Title, the firearm murder proportion is quite steady at around 70% give or take over the years

non-firearm homicide doesnt exist in the minds of these simpletons.... just like non-firearm suicide, they have zero concern even though firearm homicide is effectively negligible and statistically insignificant, not 'insignificant'....

You must take care when quoting mass-shooting, its a term that should NOT EVER be used in this context as it is related to inuries NOT death... if someone uses a firearm and several 3 /4/5 (depending on the definition of 'mass' used on the day) people are injured - not necessarily killed - then its a mass SHOOTING.....

Then look at the School mass shooting stats - injuries within X00 feet of the school grounds, not necessarily a death, not necessarily anywhere near a school....

Mass shootings in the US is defined as greater than 3 people KILLED with firearms, in a single event, in public, not related to drug violence. Go to the FBI website and read up, and you can go to the DOJ for statistics.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Show me where the fbi defines mass SHOOTING....

The accepted characterisation of a shooting or mass shooting is where victims are killed OR injured. So a m.s. may involve 4 people killed or 4 people grazed by a bullet or possibly 1 person hospitalised for psych 'trauma' and 3 treated for grazed knees when a perp took out his assault rifle gun weapon.

Thats the problem, the reports, which is the information the public masses consume.... leaves out the facts leaving "mass" and "shooting" to catch the attention of the info consumers so they can take action and repost a tweet pleading for action.....

Which invariably flows onto our local media, social and conventional.... like a cancer

[happyhunter]

Show me where the fbi defines mass SHOOTING....

Most of the definitions also required a period of time between the murders. This break-in-time was necessary to distinguish between a mass murder and a serial murder. Serial murder required a temporal separation between the different murders, which was described as: separate occasions, cooling-off period, and emotional cooling-off period.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publ ... l-murder-1

■
In 64 incidents (40.0%), the crime would have fallen within the
federal definition of
“mass killing”—defined as “three or more” killed—under the new f
ederal statute.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of- ... -2000-2013

3 or more or 4 or more depending on which FBI document you read.

[samf]

I've also read a version saying it was 2 or more, excluding situations where the shooting is gang/organised crime related.

[<<Genesis93>>]

I've also read a version saying it was 2 or more, excluding situations where the shooting is gang/organised crime related.

'Multiple' shooting means more than one!.... 2 or more...

This is the problem.... 'language' and words are mixed / changed or substituted to paint whatever picture the author wants;

example is the number of 'maps' that detail all the shootings like this one:

Mass shootings in America
https://library.stanford.edu/projects/m ... gs-america

Palo Duro High School, Friday, September 11, 1992 Amarillo, Texas
total number of victims 6
victim fatalities 0
victim injuries 6

So that was a mass 'shooting', but not a mass killing, while the 6 conveniently adds to the tally of mass shooting victims....my issue is that a lot of people, the majority perhaps have the wrong impression that theyre fatalities...

Same here:
http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook

Here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/her ... s-in-2015/

Here:
http://www.shootingtracker.com/Main_Page

Note: " We collect incidents where Airsoft or BB guns are used AS weapons"......

[<<Genesis93>>]

Show me where the fbi defines mass SHOOTING....

Most of the definitions also required a period of time between the murders. This break-in-time was necessary to distinguish between a mass murder and a serial murder. Serial murder required a temporal separation between the different murders, which was described as: separate occasions, cooling-off period, and emotional cooling-off period.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publ ... l-murder-1

■
In 64 incidents (40.0%), the crime would have fallen within the
federal definition of
“mass killing”—defined as “three or more” killed—under the new f
ederal statute.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of- ... -2000-2013

3 or more or 4 or more depending on which FBI document you read.

I missed it HH, where??

[Khan]

"casualty" is a good example too.

More often applies to mean being affected by something, wounded, injured etc.

"10 casualties" always framed in the media in ways that make you think 10 deaths when there may have been 0.

[valkyrie]

Just posting to make this easier to find later. This is gold

[<<Genesis93>>]

I thought I'd start a new thread concentrating on Aus data, but I'll just drop it in here....

The heat will build over the net few days as the grave dancing intensifies - culminating with the shameful PAM 20th anniversary celebration... So here is the latest homicide figure with a bit of perspective. I've posted some of this before, but I've added to the annual figure a 3 yr and 5 yr average to smooth out the fluctuation and yr to yr variation. These variations tend to skew the data somewhat due to the degree of statistical insignificance associated with firearm homicide in Aus - ie. there are and have ever been so FEW example relative to the sample (population) size...

So here is the firearm homicide rate in Aus over a century;



Its clear from this graph that trends develop over several decades, certainly not a year or 5.

As far as I'm concerned the firearm homicide (and the total homicide rate not shown here) have ZERO association with weapon availability, but EVERYTHING to do with social and economic conditions. IF anything, you could argue lack of lawful means od defence would increase homicide rates from the increase in the 1920 (Vic handgun regulation example) and continued increase in the 1970's (Vic first time regulation of shotguns)
Clearly the rate increases from 1950, plateaus around early/mid 80's, declines from then......

[<<Genesis93>>]

Next up the data can be smoothed by taking a moving 3 yr average. So the data point for a year would be the average of the previous, following and same year. This helps to iron out significant year to year fluctuation;



A bit smoother, and we can see something happening towards the business end

[<<Genesis93>>]

Well...... adding some trendlines we can see a clearly almost linear reduction of the firearm homicide rate.

Now put aside anything you know about 96, then look at the graph and decide, with your history blinkers fully attached, is there or is there not a clear demarcation between the pre and post 1996 periods??
The SMOOTHED rate reduced damn near linearly for almost a decade before 96.
There was a distinct pause.
Then the rate reduced at an identical rate, by was delayed by 3 or 4 yrs!!
So. for some strange reason the reduction of the rate of firearm homicide was INTERRUPTED at this time.
The occurrences of 1996 and the laws did absolutely nothing what so ever to the reduction in FA homicide apart from pausing the existing reduction.
At least thats how I interpret what I'm seeing. But dont take my word for it
(Note at the post 96 period the non-firearm rate was elsewhere shown to correspondingly increase at this time!)


Oh... and the last decade is trending upwards.

Ultimately, the grabtards whole premise that the 96 law were a success and save so many lives because all the 'bad guns' were removed, fails due to this one indisputable fact;

The rate continued to reduce when those firearms had ALREADY been removed.
So perhaps it WASNT those guns?
If it was those guns, then the rate would have dropped to ero or near enough and remained there at the end of the buy-back October 1997...

more to come.........

[<<Genesis93>>]

5 year running average

[<<Genesis93>>]

adding trend lines to the two distinctly interrupted reduction periods;


Now, over the longer range of 5yr smoothing, the second orange trend is LESS steep than the first one, ie. reduced reduction!!
The last decade of increase is also apparent...

[headspace]

I would doubt that there can ever be an effective law bought in to control guns in the US like we have here. They are two entirely different scenarios and the vast majority of US citizens are probably not going to hand in anything apart from some old clunkers they didn't want anyway, which is what happened in buy back mark two here. Suicide is not something that anyone can predict, most often not even the "suicidee". If you look at the gun violence per head of population consider the fact that there is one country with a population of around 300 million, and another that has just topped 24 million. Mexico City has 25 million. Looking at the scale of things, something the anti's never ever do, unless it favours their agenda, then a different picture emerges.

[<<Genesis93>>]

I would doubt that there can ever be an effective law bought in to control guns in the US like we have here.

So you believe that the laws we have here have any effective? That they have 'a' bearing on the resultant level of homicide??
Especially considering that (at least in Vic) we've had handgun controls for about 90 years.... yet we STILL have handgun crime/assault/homicide/crime etc...

If you look at the gun violence per head of population consider the fact that there is one country with a population of around 300 million, and another that has just topped 24 million. Mexico City has 25 million. Looking at the scale of things, something the anti's never ever do, unless it favours their agenda, then a different picture emerges.

I consider the rate per head, or per 100k of head, thats the standard comparison, it removes the scale variable...so you can directly compare USA and Aus homicide rate (in magnitude anyway) and any other country for that matter.

You cant really compare the rate, but the social makeup, gang culture that drives these figures. An inconvenient reality is that race does drive these terrible rates of homicide, take the example of Washington DC. It has a population of 600,000plus, the capital of the USA, yet the homicide rate has fluctuate, since the 1960's from 10victims/100,000 to over 80!! in 1991 to the current which is greater the 16 I believe.... this is damn near an epidemic of violence.... but its not the gun (which have been heavily controlled in DC until more recently (maybe titleII can elaborate) its something else:

2012 population
WHITE - 36%
BLACK - 50%
ASIAN - 4%
HISPANIC - 10%

2012 HOMICIDES (total 84)
WHITE - 2.4%
BLACK - 92.9% <<Eureka
ASIAN - 2.4%
HISPANIC - 2.4%

(I suspect this violence is NOT a case of the Congress going on a weekly jaunt into the suburbs to 'mow the lawn')

[coloradoboy]

nah it is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

The United States and Australia are completely different. I am pretty sure most of us Americans agree that stricter regulations aren't going to do jack to curb firearm violence. we Americans are pretty different on how we represent our views when an unjust authority imposes on us i.e. 1776 and we have about 310 million firearms in circulation in private hands the US. All I can say is 'Come and Take It'.

[<<Genesis93>>]

We've also got a case of apples and oranges... just like the issue is as racial as you could imagine in DC with 93% victims being black..... we down under have a case of denial, while Aborigines make up about as I recall something like 1 to 2 % of the overall population, they make up about 50% of the incarcerate juveniles!! while 28% of adults are Aborigine......

Of course when this startling fact comes to the surface - its everyone fault except those imprisoned...white man, invasion, racism, not enough opportunity, not enough support$....

[Jandamurra]

Comparing firearms -related deaths is pointless if you don't include them in the overall homicide rate.
This is just a quick post but the effect of making gun laws tougher as far as suicide rates are concerned, is only for other methods to sustitute. This has been pretty reliably demonstrated here and in the UK.
Here's an interesting link-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate .
The US is actually in the top half of the world in terms of safety and most of their problems come from inner-city violence.
"Oh but the US is terrible for a first world country" is something one hears.
The people who think this must think deaths in first world countries are more important than those in first-world countries. They'll say stuff like "Yeah, but that's because Brazil/ Nigeria/ South Africa are underdeveloped." It doesn't occur to them that this is a red herring-underdeveloped or not, deaths are deaths. If they wanted to decreased the death rates in these countries by crime or any other cause, they'd want to see them rise to first-world status. They might also want to allow the law-abiding there to defend themselves much more easily.

[<<Genesis93>>]

What is driving the homicide rate in the US? Its obviously crime, socio-economic factors?... But its clear that various states, and large city centres, specific cities have exceedingly high rates, I suspect this is directly related to gangs and the pop-a-cap-in-yo-ass culture, (brought to you the Hollywood cultural education system Inc. of course)

... is there a common thread? I wanted to know - so I scratched the surface and found a startlingly clear correlation, the suspected link, that everyone would say 'well yeah, thats obvious, I knew that', well ok. I have taken data from 2 sources, FBI crime data, US Census data, combined them and sorted them. Labels are as provided by the Govt agencies.

Following table represents the states sorted in an ascending manner from the lowest homicide rates (10 lowest), with the rate including non-negligent manslaughter, so although not directly comparable to the Australian rate of about 1 per 100k, which I dont believe includes non-negligent... but I'm completely not sure. Either way, our national average would fall at most no.2 on this list, at most perhaps a few slots down the list, in comparison. As I previously mentioned, there ARE U.S. states 'safer' than Australia (and States)


The following is the other end of the list, the 10 highest 'homicide rate' states, wonder if the trend is apparent??;




----------------------



At this point, I thought that I'd better look at the actual Australian state comparisons, so that we can compare Australian states with US state, as many of them are not too dissimilar in size. So state by state, gender and race have been tabulated (Only Aboriginal and TSI is readily available) and we come up with something, that to put it mildly.... kind of surprised me;



Firstly, we KNOW that males are more likely by suffer a violent death than females. Even thought every mouth piece on the radio, TV, social and other media would seek to convince all of otherwise, its a fact. Canberra is statistically unreliable, so I would discount that one, but the rest well... 6.5 males are killed by assault for every female in SA....

Have a good look at the table, it paints a picture, when compared to the US table, and consider the regional break down of the figures, that WE ARE NOT AS DISSIMILAR TO THE US AFTER ALL!!!

The other point, the elephant in the room.... I dont need to mention, suffice it to say, what I initially referred to as the pop-a-cap-in-yo-ass culture..... well, perhaps that not entirely correct.

Apologies for the longish post, but theres a heck of a lot to think about ^up there....

[vexesus]

More info the better mate