Homicide figures down in Australia

[MrBenchley]

"Homicides claimed the lives of 324 people in Australia last year - a 15 per cent drop from the year before.
Australian Institute of Criminology figures showed there were 297 homicide cases, resulting in the deaths of 324 people during 2003.
That gave Australia, with a population of 20 million, a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000, the lowest since the institute started collecting figures in 1990.
The cases range from stabbing deaths to a tourist fatally attacked by a crocodile after a tour guide told her it was safe to swim in a water hole. "

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3571124&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

That's about 50 people shot dead....So much for that "Australian bloodbath" horseshit that RKBA enthusiasts are always peddling.

Texas has about 20 million people, and has about 950 gun homicides a year.

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/asp/gundeaths.asp?state=texas

[iverglas]

1. yeah, but

Texas has about 20 million people, and has about 950 gun homicides a year.

... how many criminally negligent homicides by crocodile did it have? (Being too lazy and wary of down-under sites crashing my netscape, I'm assuming that that's what the charge would have looked like in that case.)

Somebody's gotta get those crocodiles outa those water holes, it seems, if lives are to be saved.

And somebody had to say it!


For handy comparison, Canada has a little over 1.5 times (about 1.57 x 20 million) as many people as Australia, and had (582/297) 1.96 times as many homicides in 2002 as Australia had in 2003 (our 2003 figures won't be out til the fall, I think): a homicide rate of 1.85/100,000 to Australia's 1.6/100,000.

(Now, the usual caveat. StatsCan's 2002 figure includes 15 homicides committed prior to 2002, so our actual real-time total homicide rate for 2002 would be a little lower: about 1.8 rather than 1.85. The on-going discovery of bodies in the case in question -- multiple non-firearms homicides over a period of years, by a single offender -- will also skew 2003 figures.)

Canada had 149 firearms homicides in 2002, vs. "about 50" in Australia. A Canadian rate not too far off double the Australian rate. If Canada's firearms homicide rate were the same as Australia's, we'd have had about (1.57 x 50) 79 firearms homicides.

And quelle coincidence. If you knocked 70 (149-79) firearms homicides out of Canada's 2002 total homicide figure, and knock out the 15 pre-2002 Downtown East Side murders, Canada would have had 497 total homicides in 2002. A rate of about 1.58/100,000. Canada's total homicide rate would have been slightly lower than Australia's total homicide rate. Funny how that works!

Canada's 2002 non-firearms homicide rate (counting actual 2002 homicides) was (418 total non-firearms homicides, 31,414,000 pop) 1.33/100,000.

Australia's 2003 non-firearms homicide rate was (274 total non-firearms homicides, 20,000,000 pop, figures approx.) 1.37/100,000.

Huh; Canada has laxer firearms laws and more widespread firearms ownership than Australia ... and Canada shares a border with the US ... and Canada had a much higher firearms homicide rate than Australia, but a lower non-firearms homicide rate.

Theories to explain the difference between Canada and Australia when it comes to firearms homicides will be welcome, of course. Australians being more polite and obedient than Canadians won't make the realm-of-possibility cut.

[MrBenchley]

2. Which of our "enthusiasts" last year

was claiming that he needed a .50 caliber gun to hunt crocodiles?

[Randall]

7. No one has the info?

So no one has the number of murders committed each year for the last 10 years in AU? Don't you think that would be a good start before making any decision at all?

[iverglas]

9. hast thou no google?

australia homicides 1990 2000 produced quite an adequate supply of answers quite promptly.

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 for 1999-2000. Figure 1 illustrates the rate of homicide from 1989-1990 to 1999-2000.

So already, we know that the rate in 2003 was lower than in 1999-2000: 1.6 vs. 1.8 per 100,000.

I can't reproduce the graph from the pdf document, but overall rates appear to have been fairly stable 1990-2000. (There are spikes and dips in the individual state rates, but actual numbers are small making trends difficult to assert.)

Again, I can't reproduce the graph: http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/other/graycar_adam/2000-06-homicide_slides.pdf

First graph shows a peak in homicide rates between 1987 and 1991, from the looks of it, with quite a sharp decline thereafter.

The "international trends in homicide 1972-1998" is a good one. It shows Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England & Wales, United States, Germany and Japan, illustrating the rates (and decline/rise) for each country. Guess which country looks like the Empire State Building among a bunch of bungalows.

"Comparison of homicide rates in four countries 1974-1998" shows the changing rates for Canada, Australia, England & Wales and the US. After the peaks (apparently in 1988 and 1990), Australia's rate has declined gradually and steadily. (The US rate actually goes off the chart in about 1980, i.e. over 10/100,000.)

"Comparison of homicide rates in four countries 1974-1998 excluding homicides by firearm" shows Australia's non-firearms homicide rate pretty much flatlining after a dip in about 1992, from what I can tell.

"Number of homicide incidents per year", 1989-1999, looks like this:

1990 - 306
1991 - 323
1992 - 314
1993 - 331
1994 - 323
1995 - 327
1996 - 304
1997 - 298
1998 - 297
1999 - 327

(Australia's population was just over 14 million in 1990 and just over 17 million in 2000:
http://www.tourismtrade.org.uk/uktrade/Docs/pdf/42_10978.pdf
- US Census Bureau international database)

"Yearly distribution of victims by type of weapon", 1989-1999, shows a peak in firearms homicides in what looks to be 1996-1997 (figures are given for years that run from 1 July to 30 June).


So no one has the number of murders committed each year for the last 10 years in AU? Don't you think that would be a good start before making any decision at all?

Surely you weren't suggesting that the Australian authorities did not have those numbers when they made whatever decision you might be referring to.

You just thought that somebody else should go fetch them for you? And there was I, with things to do away from the computer yesterday ...

Well, here are some. I guess now we'll just wait and see what you plan to do with them.

[Randall]

10. Thank you

This is what I was looking for:
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/other/graycar_adam/2000-06-homicide_slides.pdf

My searches weren't coming up with what I wanted. It doesn't seem like banning guns has had a significant positive or negative impact if you look back over a decent period of time.

[iverglas]

11. one for you too

It doesn't seem like banning guns has had a significant positive or negative impact if you look back over a decent period of time.

It also hasn't caused the sun to start rising in the west.



(I say, again, to no one in particular.)


http://www.aic.gov.au/media/20000726.html

Licensed gun owners not responsible for firearm homicides

26 July 2000

Licensed firearm owners are not responsible for the majority of firearm-related homicides according to research by the Australian Institute of Criminology released today by Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Justice and Customs.

"Licensed gun owners are law-abiding citizens with legitimate reasons for owning the weapons they have."

"In over 90 per cent of firearm-related homicides the offenders are not licensed and the weapons are not registered," Senator Vanstone said.

"In 1998/99 there were 64 firearm-related homicides in Australia, the lowest number since the National Homicide Monitoring Program commenced a decade ago."

"The rate of firearm-related homicide in Australia is 14 times less than the rate in the U-S."

"However, the use of handguns in homicides in Australia has increased from 13% in 1995/96 to 42% in 1998/99. Positively though, not one handgun used in a homicide between 1997 and 1999 was used by a licensed owner. One gun was registered, but to the victim."

"The problem therefore appears to be handguns that are diverted illegally into the black market for criminal use."

Now, do yer research, and tell us what the purpose of the Australian firearms control legislation is. And *then* tell us that it is not having any effect.

As quoted by Benchley in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=63657&mesg_id=63752&page=

"Gun lobby representatives often speak about 'Law Abiding Shooters' as though 99.9% of gun owners could be placed in that category. Police checks in several of Melbourne's Eastern suburbs have recently shown that about half the number of gun owners do not store their guns legally."
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=66

The firearms being used in homicides and crimes in Australia are not legally possessed, and one of the ways that the people get hold of firearms illegally is plainly by theft from people in lawful possession, something easier to accomplish when the firearms are not securely stored.

Limiting who is entitled to possess firearms lawfully can be expected to reduce the numbers of homicides/crimes committed by people in lawful possession of firearms. Requiring that they store their firearms securely can be expected to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of people not entitled to possess them lawfully.

How exactly do the figures show that the aspects of the Australian firearms legislation that are apparently enforced (limits on who is entitled to lawfully possess firearms) have not had a positive effect in terms of the first goal? And how would enforcement of the safe storage requirements not be expected to have a positive effect on the goal of reducing homicides/crimes by people in unlawful possession of firearms?

And why might you expect that enforcing limits on who is entitled to lawfully possess firearms would reduce the numbers of homicides/crimes committed by persons in unlawful possession of firearms?

(Where's that head-scratching smileyface thing?)

[Randall]

3. Exact numbers?

Does anyone have exact numbers of homicides committed every year for the last ten years there? Or even a link where I could see it myself? I'd like to see if there has been any trends prior to or after banning guns there.

[MrBenchley]

4. I know one trend

Gun wankers have been lying their asses off about it nearly every damn day.

[billbuckhead]

5. Where's their NRA approved memes to take this trend on?

This close to proof positive that gun regulation works, even in independent spirted Australia.

[MrBenchley]

6. Once again

fact trumps gun nut foolishness

[MrBenchley]

8. Wise words from down under...

"These arguments in favour of a privately armed society spring from those who appear to either suffer from paranoia or simply like the feel of a gun in the hand. The fact is that the public appear to be protected by strict gun laws as recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) suggest.
All this means that now, about 350 fewer Australians die each year from gun wounds. Surely that's good news. It means that gun control works, despite what the gun lobby says. It also suggests that politicians should place little trust in the claims of gun lobbyists. "

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=70