The Black Vault

The Blaze wrote:Malcom’s article details what happened after Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 people by a madman with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. What effect did this have on crime?

“A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.”

The Blaze wrote:Will Banning Guns Stop Homicides? Stats from England and Australia Show…


The debate on gun control is only gaining momentum. On Thursday, Senator Diane Feinstein outlined her plans to introduce sweeping legislation that includes fingerprinting and registration of all those who currently own so-called semi-automatic “assault” weapons.

Those in favor of a total ban on firearms often point to countries like England and Australia where firearms are banned or virtually impossible to possess. A look into the statistics might offer some clarity, though, about how safe such a move actually makes a country.

Let’s start at home. From 2009 to 2011, homicides overall declined slightly according to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, with a corresponding drop in homicides by firearms.

In fact, the report says homicide is not among the top 15 leading causes of death in America. (As recently as 2009, the CDC reported that homicide was in the top 15 at #15.) Instead:

Accidents (unintentional deaths) were #5 and Suicide (intentional harm) has held solid as the 10th leading cause of death for several years.
The stats from 2009 show that homicides totaled 16,799, with 11,493 of those attributed to guns.
During that same year, motor vehicle deaths were nearly triple that of gun-related deaths — 34,485 vs. 11,493.
Death from accidental falls totaled 24,792, almost double the firearms homicide total.

The stats for gun deaths have actually shown some significant declines in the past two decades.

Looking at the above graph, it is worth noting that deaths caused by “other guns” has been relatively flat since 1985. The assault weapons ban was in place from 1994-2004.

And what about the argument most often made by the Left quoting the success of oppressive gun laws in countries like Australia and England? A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Lee Malcolm shows that argument to be hollow: “After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled.”

Malcom’s article details what happened after Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 people by a madman with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. What effect did this have on crime?

“A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.”

During the same period in America, deaths attributed to firearms dropped by nearly ten times the decline seen in Australia. Restricting or confiscating handguns seems to have had almost no effect on homicides in Australia and the stats also show that the law had no real effect on suicides.

“Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up,” Malcom notes.

And what about the oft-cited British gun laws? Have they done the job?

Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and Malcolm reports that getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a “good reason” for needing a gun. Self defense is not considered to be a good reason in England. Following a 1987 shooting in the British town of Hungerford, the Brits enacted stricter controls. And in 1998, a near-total ban on gun ownership followed another mass shooting. Were these moves a success?

Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.

There is little doubt that the Senate will soon put forth new legislation regarding gun ownership, especially as it relates to so-called assault weapons. However, those making the argument that banning guns has worked in places like Australia and England might be advised to check the statistics or risk looking foolish if they encounter someone armed with the facts.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/will-ba ... alia-show/

The Blaze wrote:During the same period in America, deaths attributed to firearms dropped by nearly ten times the decline seen in Australia. Restricting or confiscating handguns seems to have had almost no effect on homicides in Australia and the stats also show that the law had no real effect on suicides.

blackvault wrote:Actually, no. Research, and REAL figures show, the decline was "small" in Australia.

Here is something which was published... *gasp*... just today.

Here is the excerpt regarding Australia, while the full article is below:

The Blaze wrote:Malcom’s article details what happened after Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 people by a madman with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. What effect did this have on crime?

“A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.”

& yet there was a decline ...... So more proof that the gun laws have worked.

They have worked because, there was a decline & not an increase.

The fact that you cant show that gun crime has risen proves your argument fails.

Gun control works & works very well.


This from your own post.

n crime has doubled.”

Malcom’s article details what happened after Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 people by a madman with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. What effect did this have on crime?

“A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.”

During the same period in America, deaths attributed to firearms dropped by nearly ten times the decline seen in Australia. Restricting or confiscating handguns seems to have had almost no effect on homicides in Australia and the stats also show that the law had no real effect on suicides.

The Blaze wrote:Will Banning Guns Stop Homicides? Stats from England and Australia Show…


The debate on gun control is only gaining momentum. On Thursday, Senator Diane Feinstein outlined her plans to introduce sweeping legislation that includes fingerprinting and registration of all those who currently own so-called semi-automatic “assault” weapons.

Those in favor of a total ban on firearms often point to countries like England and Australia where firearms are banned or virtually impossible to possess. A look into the statistics might offer some clarity, though, about how safe such a move actually makes a country.

The stats for gun deaths have actually shown some significant declines in the past two decades.

There is little doubt that the Senate will soon put forth new legislation regarding gun ownership, especially as it relates to so-called assault weapons. However, those making the argument that banning guns has worked in places like Australia and England might be advised to check the statistics or risk looking foolish if they encounter someone armed with the facts.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/will-ba ... alia-show/

greeney2 wrote:Trying to convince Rath is an exercise in futility. We have 310 million people, about 10 times more total, in the same area. It you want to really compare facts and figures, multiply Australia's statistics by a factor of 10, to make the numbers proportionate.

blackvault wrote:Just want to reinforce one last thing:

The Blaze wrote:During the same period in America, deaths attributed to firearms dropped by nearly ten times the decline seen in Australia. Restricting or confiscating handguns seems to have had almost no effect on homicides in Australia and the stats also show that the law had no real effect on suicides.

rath wrote:http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/home?opendocument#from-banner=GT

Australian Crime Data ....... (( Falling after gun reform in 1997. ))

This page first published 24 May 2012, last updated 3 December 2012

Murder, 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons
Attempted murder, 0.9 victims per 100,000 persons
Manslaughter, 0.1 victims per 100,000 persons
Sexual assault, 79.5 victims per 100,000 persons
Kidnapping/abduction, 2.7 victims per 100,000 persons
Robbery, 56.0 victims per 100,000 persons.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... tistics~63

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subjec/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~National%20crime%20statistics~63


WEAPONS USED AGAINST VICTIMS OF CRIME RECORDED BY POLICE

In 2010, a weapon was used in 67% of murders, 71% of attempted murders, and 39% of robberies. The most common weapon type used in the commission of all three offences was a knife, which was used against 33% of murder, 28% of attempted murder, and 18% of robbery victims.

The next most common weapon type that was used against victims was a firearm, with 17% of murder, 24% of attempted murder, and 7% of robbery victims subjected to an offence involving a firearm.

The majority of sexual assault (98%), kidnapping/abduction (89%) and robbery victims (61%) did not have a weapon used against them in the commission of the offence.

rath wrote:Tough gun laws linked to fewer deaths
Bob Egelko - San Francisco chronicle,

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

But a new study by a San Francisco organization reaches the opposite conclusion: States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.

Connecticut had the fourth-strongest gun laws and was sixth-lowest in gun deaths, while Hawaii ranked fifth in gun control and had the lowest death rate.

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana - all graded F for gun control - had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California's rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

the report said, quoting the federal Centers for Disease Control, California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.

More research is needed on the links between specific weapons regulations and fatalities, but "the data supports the common-sense conclusion that gun laws are a significant factor in a state's rate of gun deaths," said the report.

Since the report's release last month, The Chronicle has forwarded it for comment to four pro-gun organizations: the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and its state affiliate, Gun Owners of California. None replied to calls or e-mails.


But no state goes as far as the nation of Australia, which responded to a 1996 mass shooting by not only outlawing sales of semiautomatic rifles but also requiring owners of the weapons to turn them in for a refund. Gun deaths have plunged, and Australia has experienced no more large-scale shootings.

It's unlikely that the United States will do anything similar soon.

"We're just not there politically," Cutiletta said.

Online

The report, "Gun Laws Matter," can be viewed at tinyurl.com/cj5x6vq.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tou ... z2G9rbxrEY

rath wrote:Australian Crime Data ....... (( Falling after gun reform in 1997. ))

This page first published 24 May 2012, last updated 3 December 2012

Murder, 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons

California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.

California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.

Rath wrote:Another web site with no accreditation being run bay a fat kid ( future mass murder ) on his moms computer.

All these reports are just last ditch attempts by a desperate group of psychopath gun owners.