This is an interesting editorial talking about the surge in crime in Australia. I link this for this quote, which you think would explain why measures taken failed to work:
Sydney University gun control researcher Professor Philip Alpers said: “Firearms are the most desirable objects in the criminal world and they (criminals) will go to great lengths to get them.”
You don’t say? I wish my job were that easy.
IN just 48 hours on Sydney’s streets three teenagers were stabbed with a screwdriver, an elderly woman was threatened with a gun and a man carjacked.
It amuses me to see an article titled “Weapons fuel surge in crime” that begins by mentioning three counts of “screwdriver violence” and two incidents in which people were threatened and robbed at gunpoint, but not injured.
I hope the screwdriver control movement is on top of this.
Honesty is not a strong suit in the gunloon world. Since 1996 (as of June 2007), here are the 10 year crime trends in Australia:
Murder: Down 3.9%
Assault (non-domestic violence related): Up 1.6%
Assault (domestic violence related): Up 5.2%
Sexual Asaault: Up 1.1%
Robbery without a weapon: Down 2.8%
Robbery with a weapon: Down 9.3%
Robbery with a weapon not a firearm: Down 7.3%
Break and enter – dwelling: Down 6.2%
Wiki has a decent summary of the whole thing here
JadeGold, the Australian newspaper is the one complaining about the surge in crime. The article seems to focus on Sydney, so it probably has little to do with overall crime rates in Australia.
AMcZ: Reference Sebastian’s post. It says “I link this for this quote, which you think would explain why measures taken failed to work:” under a title of “Gun Control in Australia.”
It is Sydney they are referring to specifically, which I understand does have a problem of increasing crime.
Do not argue with the stupid bastard about which part of Australia is being addressed in the article. That shows acceptance of his stats. They are false.
Check them out for yourselves. We have all seen the crime rate spike addressed in many Ozzie publications. The state SB (stupid bastard) used are cherry-picked.
stats not state.
Actually, StraightArrow, they are true and from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Recorded Crime). But you are free to continue lying and I am free to continue to rub your nose in it.
So JG, care to provide a source or should we just trust you?
Realfacts:
* Between 1996 and 2003 the number of homicides has fluctuated between 330 and 390 victims. In 2004 and 2005 the number of homicides dropped below 300.
* A slight increase was reported in the number of robbery offences, from 16,513 in 2004 to 16,787 in 2005. The number of robbery offences in 2004 was the lowest recorded since 1996.
* The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates yearly. Over the period 1996-2004 the number of kidnappings registered a steady increase. However, between 2004 and 2005 it decreased slightly, from 768 to 730.
* While the overall trend in recorded sexual assaults has shown a steady increase over the period 1996-2004, 2005 recorded a slight decrease on the previous year.
* Assaults have continued to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 46% between 1996 and 2005. Between 2004 and 2005 recorded assault offences increased by 6%.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2006/01_recorded_crime.html
An increase of 46% in assaults between 1996 and 2005.
I would say that would make Jadegold a bald-faced, shameless liar.
This isn’t news to anyone, of course. Par for the course, for his ilk.
Mark: You would say many things, I imagine, as you are not very bright and tend to ramble incoherently when stimulated by shiny objects or the sound of fire trucks.
Third’s stats are from the same source as mine. The difference is that my stats are broken into separate categories–assaults that are of the domestic violence type , those that are not, and sexual assaults.
The difference is your stats are selectively chosen and still not sourced. You said they were current as of June ’07. Provide the link.
Realfacts: (aka fun w/ stats)
Homicide rates stayed relatively constant between ’96 and ’04. Homicide rates w/ firearms had been dropping steadily for over 30 years. Therefore there was an increase in the use of non-firearms in homicide.
Robbery and B&E continued to climb until “01 when it started dropping.
Sexual assault is perhaps up 1.1% per capita. Actual victim numbers are up over 20% .
Except for a drop in the already decreasing trend of firearm us in homicide in ’96, there’s no correlation to the firearm laws and crime levels.
I wonder what the numbers are in Syndey for the last year and a half. Might there have been an increase during that time period?
Buyback has no effect on murder rate
Matthew Moore
October 24, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html
HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.
The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.
The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.
“Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia,” the study says.
In his first year in office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, forced through some of the world’s toughest gun laws, including the national buyback scheme, after Martin Bryant used semi-automatic rifles to shoot dead 35 people at Port Arthur.
Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.
One of the authors of the study, Jeanine Baker, said she knew in 1996 it would be impossible for years to know whether the Prime Minister or the shooters were right.
“I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate,” she said.
The findings were clear, she said: “The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued.”
Dr Baker and her co-author, Samara McPhedran, declared their membership of gun groups in the article, something Dr Baker said they had done deliberately to make clear “who we are” and head off any possible criticism that they had hidden relevant details.
The significance of the article was not who had written it but the fact it had been published in a respected journal after the regular rigorous process of being peer reviewed, she said.
Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.
Dr Baker said many more lives would have been saved had the Government spent the $500 million on mental health or other programs rather than on destroying semi-automatic weapons.
She believed semi-automatic rifles should be available to shooters, although with tight restrictions such as those in place in New Zealand.
The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said he was not surprised by the study. He said it showed “politicians would be well advised to claim success of their policies after they were evaluated, not before”.