"Military weapons in hands of gangs". Sydney Australia

[jody]

QUOTE
yesterday offered to speak personally with anyone giving information on the spate of deadly shootings that have shaken Sydney.

The commissioner's offer is the latest desperate attempt to break the wall of silence in an escalating battle with heavily armed gangs involved in crime in the south-western suburbs.

Yesterday, the man who survived a double murder in Greenacre on Monday night was taken back to the bullet-riddled house as detectives executed a search warrant.
UNQUOTE

Australia should consider banning firearms. Sorry I forgot, they've already done that.

[demsrule4life]

1. Jody

I have been informed in very simple words so I could understand them that gun control laws are not intended to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

[jody]

3. That's my understanding also. As regards firearms, some people believe

only criminals and government employees have the right to defend self. That's equivalent to pResident AWOL and his supporters who believe only corporations and the government have rights.

Is there any real difference between (a) criminals who murder and pillage behind the gun and (b) corporations that rape and pillage behind the laws they paid the People's representatives to pass?

[MrBenchley]

2. Jeepers, Jody...

"At least 118 drive-by shootings, kneecappings, murders, armed robberies and other gun offences have occurred since March."
Gee, if Dallas could say there'd only been 118 shootings in six months, there'd be dancing in the streets.

[Liberal Classic]

4. How many of those are drug related?

And how many of the "other gun offenses" are violent crimes?

You know what they say, there are liars, damn liars, and statisticians with apologies to Sam Clemens.

[MrBenchley]

5. In Dallas? Or Australia?

[1a2b3c]

13. Apples and oranges?

Wouldnt it be more fruitfull, pun intended, to compare the rise of gun crime instead of the numbers of crimes? Sydney is on a whole different continent with different social problems, or lack there of. Dallas is a bit close to Mexico putting it on the front lines of a war on drugs. Not only that but the state was ran by *. As weve seen *'s economic plans arent the best.

[MrBenchley]

17. Gee, so do you want to tell us which he meant?

"Wouldnt it be more fruitfull, pun intended, to compare the rise of gun crime instead of the numbers of crimes? "
Only for the dishonest sort of plugugly trying to pretend that Australia is having some sor tof bloodbath due to gun control....which is horseshit.

"As weve seen *'s economic plans arent the best."
His "gun rights" policy eats it too.

[1a2b3c]

18. I think he meant

That criminals still have and always will have a way to get guns. You would have to ask him though. And yes *'s backing of the Assault Weapons ban eats it too.

[Valarauko]

26. His "gun rights" policy eats it too.

For example, he supports extending the AWB.

[iverglas]

6. aren't you going to tell us

... how many massacres of hapless bystanders who were not involved in any crime have happened in Australia since the firearms ownership rules were tightened? How many drive-by shootings?

Here's the bit that I don't get.

When responding to data showing the sky-high figures for firearms deaths in the US, the RKBA fans invariably announce that most of these victims were involved in criminal activity. There seem to be two points: we shouldn't really be worrying about them, and "law-abiding gun owners" shouldn't be "penalized" for the criminals' sins ... despite the fact that there are really quite a lot of firearms deaths in the US that just don't involve criminals at all.

And yet when responding to data that show that in countries where firearms ownership is tightly regulated, firearms deaths among non-criminals have decreased (or have not increased as might have been expected, all other things being equal) -- well, then they point to the firearms deaths of criminals to "prove" that firearms control is ineffectual.



Australia's new firearms legislation came on line in 1997.

There were 328 firearms-related deaths in Australia in 1998 (homicides, suicides, accidents ...).

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/20000827.html

On the positive side however, the number of firearm-related deaths in 1998 at 328 was 25% less - or 110 fewer - than in 1997 and a 37% decrease - or 197 fewer - than in 1996.

Suicides accounted for 71.6 per cent of firearms deaths in 1998, followed by homicides (17.4 per cent), and deaths from accidental discharge (6.4 per cent).

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2003/20030403.html

In 2001-2002 there was a 25 per cent decrease in the use of firearms to commit homicide. This is one of the major findings from the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) annual report released today by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

... In 2001-2002, there were a total of 354 homicide incidents perpetrated by 375 alleged offenders, which resulted in the deaths of 381 victims.

Compared to 2000-2001, Australia recorded a 20 per cent increase in homicide victimisation. In 2001-2002, there were 381 victims of homicide compared to 317 victims in 2000-2001.

... Compared to last year, the proportion of family homicides (excluding intimates) has doubled (23% in 2001-2002 compared to 11% in 2000-2001). Two factors account for this change:
An increase in the death of children under five (mostly infant deaths); and
An increase in the incidence of triple homicides which mainly involved family members.

23% of 381 (2001-2002) is 88. 11% of 317 (2000-2001) is 35. There were 53 more family-member homicides in 2001-2002 than in 2000-2001. That is, there were 11 more non-family homicides in 2001-2002 than in 2000-2001. (As well, there were 14 more multiple-victim (2 or 3 victim) homicides than in the previous year, most of them family homicides -- i.e. there were not 64 more homicide incidents than in the previous year.)

Yup, people are still killing their spouses and kids, and not using firearms to do it. Just as they were before the ban.

Is 2001-2002 a blip? We can't say right now.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti187.pdf

In 1999-2000, a total of 300 homicide incidents occurred in Australia, perpetrated by 324 identified offenders and resulting in the death of 337 persons persons. In terms of rates, Australia recorded a homicide victimisation rate of 1.8 per 100,000 residents

337 in 1999-2000, 317 in 2000-2001, 381 in 2001-2002. A marked difference from the historic trend. An unfortunate fad for killing one's family members. And multiple homicides that skew figures (like the Downtown East Side murders in Vancouver, for Canada).

Figure 1 illustrates the rate of homicide from 1989-1990 to 1999-2000. As stated elsewhere (see Mouzos 2000a), the homicide victimisation rate in Australia has demonstrated remarkable stability over this 11-year period. There have, however, been a number of significant events that resulted in an increase in the rate for a given year (Figure 1). The most obvious are: the Port Arthur incident (1995-96); the Strathfield incident (1991-92); the Central Coast incident (1992-93); the Snowtown murders (1998-99); the three murder-suicide incidents in Western Australia (one in 1998-99 and two in 1999-2000); and, more recently, the Childers fire in Queensland which claimed 15 victims.

In 1995, there were 67 firearms homicides in Australia:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342?OpenDocument
In 2001-2002, there were (14% of 381) 53.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi054.pdf

Firearms were used in 26 per cent of homicides in Australia in 1989-90, compared to 14 per cent in 2001-02. This represents a 25 per cent decrease, and is the lowest proportion of homicides committed with a firearm since the inception of the NHMP in 1990. The most common type of firearms used to commit homicide in 2001-02 were handguns (56 per cent) and in most cases the firearm used in the homicide was not registered or licensed to either the victim or the offender.

There has been a decrease not only in the percentage of homicides committed using firearms, but also in the number of homicides committed using firearms, as well as in the number of homicides and homicide rate, as a trend. That "substitution" effect just doesn't seem to be quite what it's purported to be.

Yup, those criminals still have their guns, and still kill people with them.

But it does seem that fewer non-criminals are being killed by guns since the tighter firearms controls came on line.

Coincidence, I assume.

.

[MrBenchley]

7. Great post!

As noted, if we had an American city of comparable size to Sydney that could boast just 118 shootings in six months, it would be hailed as a miracle.

[a2birdcage]

8. Just curious but I thought.......

gun control was designed to stop criminals from obtaining and using guns? Isn't that why some people are screaming if the assault weapons ban is allowed to sunset then assault weapons will be back on the street? I take it the saying "back on the street" is meaning criminals will have them back in their possession. I also thought the whole idea of the instant back ground check was designed to stop criminals from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers? I find it classic that all the anti-freedom lovers have been screaming for gun control for all these years in order to stop criminals from obtaining guns and once they realized that these policies don't do anything to prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun they all of a sudden try to say, "but see we have less legal gun owners getting killed each year by their guns". Classic!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[a2birdcage]

10. Huh, did you hear something?

Must have been the wind!

[MrBenchley]

11. I suspect bad faith

rather than blindness or foolishness, myself.

Wonder if there's any evidence to support that?

[CarinKaryn]

14. iverglas, I've read most of your posts here

and I have to say you write very well and make extremely astute observations. It seems the stronger your arguments and reasoning, the more dismissive and abusive the other posters to you.

:yourock:

[1a2b3c]

15. You read those?

I find them very long and drawn out. Iverglas needs to try and come to a point with less then 10 paragraphs. He has corrected my spelling and punctuation a few times. For that, i am forever in debt to him/her.

[MrBenchley]

16. Gee, many of us can read

and actually appreciate content.

[1a2b3c]

19. Ouch that hurt

Pwease dont hurt my feewling Miser Benchley.

[iverglas]

20. noticed that, did you?

I mean the "more dismissive and abusive", not the "extremely astute", of course. ;)

I have fun doing all the research and finding the stuff out. The learning is reward enough for me. If somebody reads what I find and what I have to say about it, and learns something too, that's bonus!

And of course I appreciate knowing when it happens.

Lemme see whether I can do this, now ...

:toast:

.

[Pert_UK]

21. Another classic post - to summarise......

Consider 2 groups of society - criminals and non-criminals.

Criminals illegally access guns for the purpose of committing crimes.

Non-criminals have legal access to guns for recreational / defence purposes. Sometimes these weapons are misused for suicide, homicide, accidental injury etc.

It's madness to conclude that the increased illegal, deliberate obtaining of illegal weapons by criminals, specifically for use in crimes, means that gun control laws have failed, if those laws have simultaneously reduced the number of gun incidents amongst legal gun owners.

Consider, violent crime in one UK city increased 70% in one year after Jamaican Yardie Drug Gangs moved into the area and set-up their drug-dealing business..........many of these crimes involved the use of guns.

So......do we conclude that the gun ban in the UK has failed because of this? No, these crimes would have happened anyway, as they're committed by violent men intent on making money illegally through the use of violence. We conclude that we're not effectively addressing the problem of violent drug crime. We don't need to address the problem of misused legally-held guns, because there aren't any..........no mopping-up after school massacres etc.

[demsrule4life]

22. What a shame

Hard to believe at one time England was such a proud crounty. Hitler ended up winning even though he has been dead for 58 years.

[Pert_UK]

23. Errrrr.................what?

I was sorely tempted to go off on a rant, but then considered that just MAYBE I'm misunderstanding your intent.

Are you sympathising and mouring the loss of a peaceful, law-abiding utopian England that's now corrupted by foreign criminals?

Or are you suggesting that Hitler had a de facto victory in WWII because the British cannot legally hold firearms?

Or something else.....

Please explain, as I'm very confused.

P.

[demsrule4life]

24. No, I'am confused

I cant understand how people are willing to give up rights to be safe but in reality you are no safer now then before the ban. I was just wondering how much more are you willing to give up? Getting rid of trial by jury? abolish the rule against double jeopardy?
Confiscate the assets of people accused of a crime without trial? I know I cant win a debate with you over this, I just dont understand the mindset.

[Pert_UK]

25. Hmmm.....I won't give your sanity the benefit of the doubt next time.

Item: guns weren't ever a "right" in the UK. Safety might be, but guns are neither necessary nor sufficient to provide safety, so it's not like we've all voted to give up safety itself...

Item: "I was just wondering how much more are you willing to give up?"...well, guns weren't a "right". Self defence might be a right, but there's nothing to suggest that in the UK guns are a suitable or appropriate means of self-defence. Even if it were, giving up one "right" does not entail that one automatically gives up every other right.....surely one is able to say that "This right infringes upon my other rights and has a negative impact on the rights of society overall....therefore I will freely give up my right to bear arms in order to promote the greater right of all to safety."

Item: "no safer now then (sic) before the ban". Well possibly.....but that's not got a lot to do with the gun ban.

The only way that your statement could have ANY relevance to the argument at hand, is if public firearm ownership in the UK (pre-ban) prevented or suppressed gun crime. This is UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE (please understand this key point). Guns in the UK were not owned in sufficient numbers to offer any deterrant to criminals. Moreoever, they were definitely NOT seen weapons of self-defence, and NOT allowed to be carried on the person. Security guards were never armed and the police (except in special circumstances) didn't even carry weapons.

So...given that guns were neither a deterrant nor a weapon of self-defence before the ban, has the population of the UK (which supported the ban) lost anything since the ban? Yes...it's lost the risk of a legal gunowner taking their weapons and deliberately misusing them, it's removed a number of weapons from circulation that could have been misused or fallen into criminal hands to be misused there.

Gun crime has gone up, OK, I accept that, and maybe UK society is more dangerous since the ban than prior...but the arrival / development of criminals who are increasingly willing to obtain and use illegal guns, does not entail that the handgun ban didn't have an overall positive effect in reducing the number of firearm deaths.

Item: "I know I cant win a debate with you over this, I just dont understand the mindset." Look......the reason you can't win a debate with me on this is because you ignore the rules of debate by making illogical conclusions, using false assumptions and ignoring/misrepresenting evidence.

I've repeatedly stated that the UK and US are clearly not comparable situations, and yet you keep resurrecting this tired old scenario as if it makes a point for you. It doesn't.

There are MANY good arguments in favour of US citizens being allowed to own, carry and use firearms in self-defence, and reasonable, logical discussion about it is what I'm interested in. These arguments are based on history, culture, law, modern US society's situation, etc.

There are few (if any) sensible arguments to suggest that the general citzenry of the UK would experience LESS violence if they were armed, and none of the facts that you (mis)use lend any weight to your idea that we would be. Quite the opposite.

Of course, the other reason that you won't win this "debate" with me is that I view anyone who concludes "UK citizens can't own guns therefore Hitler won WWII" as being utterly bonkers.

No offense.

P.

P.S.
Item: "abolish the rule against double jeopardy" - personally, yes, I would give this up......developments in evidence detection mean hat if someone is found not guilty due to "reasonable doubt" which is later dispelled by concrete proof, I would want them tried again with the new proof introduced. I would like criminals to be convicted and sentenced for their crimes, regardless of whether they've been tried previously and found not-guilty due to evidence shortfalls.

[pandatimothy]

12. Hey they are banning LEGAL pistols in Australia this month

IANSA was just crapping in their pants they were so happy.