Comments on: A question… http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/ Australian Libertarian Society Blog Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:16:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: nicholas gray http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49114 nicholas gray Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:43:05 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49114 Some years ago, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that knife attacks were on the rise. I think we still have the same number of homicides, but people just use different weapons. And Switzerland has military 'service', where switzettes learn how to kill people, and they are even allowed to take weapons home with them! How come I never heard of any Swiss massacre? Do they cover them up very well, or do they not have massacres despite all those weapons? are the swiss just naturally more peace-loving?, or are they well-trained in gun maintainence, and they know their neighbours have guns, so any robber is running a real risk of death or serious injury, and knows it? Whilst I disagree with compulsory service, Switzerland gives us a counter-example of a gun-heavy culture that is light on fatalities and injuries. Some years ago, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that knife attacks were on the rise. I think we still have the same number of homicides, but people just use different weapons.
And Switzerland has military ‘service’, where switzettes learn how to kill people, and they are even allowed to take weapons home with them! How come I never heard of any Swiss massacre? Do they cover them up very well, or do they not have massacres despite all those weapons? are the swiss just naturally more peace-loving?, or are they well-trained in gun maintainence, and they know their neighbours have guns, so any robber is running a real risk of death or serious injury, and knows it? Whilst I disagree with compulsory service, Switzerland gives us a counter-example of a gun-heavy culture that is light on fatalities and injuries.

]]> By: TerjeP (say tay-a) http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49108 TerjeP (say tay-a) Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:10:21 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49108 Alex - you could try asking them how many mass shootings there were in Tasmania in the many decades prior to Port Arthur and how it was possible to have so few mass shootings in those years given the previous laws. Note however that if there is a mass shooting in Tasmania next week it won't be used by gun control advocates as reason to abondon their argument. Quite the contrary no doubt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Australian_mass_murders Outside combat zones mass shootings are rare events. As such they are not generally amenable to statistical analysis of annual figures. Which is why the serious studies generally focus on the more workable annual data relating to homicide and gun related homicide. And what we know in Australia is that we enjoyed a downward trend in both figures both before and after 1996. And that some of the lowest rates of homicide and gun related homicide occured during the 1940s when guns were far more prevalent in the population than they are today. On a personal note a mass shooting is believed to have been averted in my neighbourhood a couple of months ago. My parents passed by the point of intended action a few minutes before police intervened. The man concerned was supposedly carrying 3 clips, each with ten rounds of ammunition. Ironically any such mass shooting plans that the man may have had were averted because he was shot dead using a gun. Alex – you could try asking them how many mass shootings there were in Tasmania in the many decades prior to Port Arthur and how it was possible to have so few mass shootings in those years given the previous laws. Note however that if there is a mass shooting in Tasmania next week it won’t be used by gun control advocates as reason to abondon their argument. Quite the contrary no doubt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Australian_mass_murders

Outside combat zones mass shootings are rare events. As such they are not generally amenable to statistical analysis of annual figures. Which is why the serious studies generally focus on the more workable annual data relating to homicide and gun related homicide. And what we know in Australia is that we enjoyed a downward trend in both figures both before and after 1996. And that some of the lowest rates of homicide and gun related homicide occured during the 1940s when guns were far more prevalent in the population than they are today.

On a personal note a mass shooting is believed to have been averted in my neighbourhood a couple of months ago. My parents passed by the point of intended action a few minutes before police intervened. The man concerned was supposedly carrying 3 clips, each with ten rounds of ammunition. Ironically any such mass shooting plans that the man may have had were averted because he was shot dead using a gun.

]]> By: Mark Hill http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49107 Mark Hill Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:48:04 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49107 No, we've had attempted ones (Monash) and Sydney in the last decade in paticular has had an steep increase in gun related crime. We had virtually no gun regulation in the 1950s and no mass shootings. The criminologists who backed the NFA now say it is counterproductive. Furthermore, look at the trends in gun violence since Federation. A very enlightening paper: http://www.ssaasa.org.au/pdf/Baker-McPhedran_critique_of_chapman_et_al.pdf Also see: Trends in Violent Death and Firearms, 1915-94, Australian Institute of Criminology Crime, Safety and Firearms Injury 2000 Prevention and Management, Australian Institute of Criminology wikipedia, crime in Australia 1900-1999 1st AIC article, wikipedia: Over the 100+ years of Australian crime records, there is no relationship between the level of gun regulation and the crime rate. They appear to be uncorrelated. Second AIC article: The rate of gun homicides and homicides in general appears to be almost perfectly cointegrated - that is guns actually don’t affect the crime rate at all. They are simply a means to an ends. The OECD data is widely available elsewhere. Over the panel (time and corss section), there is no apparent correlation. See Peter Whelan's CLASS (Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters) webpage for more. Another site: Gun Facts Version 4.2 Dr Don Weatherburn, Head NSW Criminologist and NFA architect said the gun laws had no effect on crime last year. He doubts the value of laws he proposed. No, we’ve had attempted ones (Monash) and Sydney in the last decade in paticular has had an steep increase in gun related crime.

We had virtually no gun regulation in the 1950s and no mass shootings.

The criminologists who backed the NFA now say it is counterproductive.

Furthermore, look at the trends in gun violence since Federation.

A very enlightening paper:

http://www.ssaasa.org.au/pdf/Baker-McPhedran_critique_of_chapman_et_al.pdf

Also see:

Trends in Violent
Death and Firearms,
1915-94, Australian Institute of Criminology

Crime, Safety and Firearms
Injury 2000 Prevention and Management, Australian Institute of Criminology

wikipedia, crime in Australia 1900-1999

1st AIC article, wikipedia:

Over the 100+ years of Australian crime records, there is no relationship between the level of gun regulation and the crime rate. They appear to be uncorrelated.

Second AIC article:

The rate of gun homicides and homicides in general appears to be almost perfectly cointegrated – that is guns actually don’t affect the crime rate at all. They are simply a means to an ends.

The OECD data is widely available elsewhere. Over the panel (time and corss section), there is no apparent correlation.

See Peter Whelan’s CLASS (Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters) webpage for more.

Another site: Gun Facts Version 4.2

Dr Don Weatherburn, Head NSW Criminologist and NFA architect said the gun laws had no effect on crime last year. He doubts the value of laws he proposed.

]]> By: Alex http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49106 Alex Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:35:29 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49106 How do you retort the argument that I always come across when discussing this issue with others that here in Australia our laws have been a smashing success since that we haven't had any major mass shootings since Port Arthur? How do you retort the argument that I always come across when discussing this issue with others that here in Australia our laws have been a smashing success since that we haven’t had any major mass shootings since Port Arthur?

]]> By: TerjeP (say tay-a) http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49096 TerjeP (say tay-a) Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:46:18 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49096 Pizza is always a reasonable argument. ;-) Pizza is always a reasonable argument. ;-)

]]> By: skepticlawyer » ‘I won’t testify. I’m afraid’ http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49028 skepticlawyer » ‘I won’t testify. I’m afraid’ Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:48:11 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49028 [...] Interesting chat on this going on over at the ALS. This entry was written by skepticlawyer, posted on at 7:24 am, filed under Defence, Economics, [...] [...] Interesting chat on this going on over at the ALS. This entry was written by skepticlawyer, posted on at 7:24 am, filed under Defence, Economics, [...]

]]> By: skepticlawyer http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49027 skepticlawyer Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:25:10 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49027 "The law does not concern itself with trifles". “The law does not concern itself with trifles”.

]]> By: Temujin http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49025 Temujin Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:28:24 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49025 I could argue that. But it would be a bit disingenuous as I don't know what it means. For all I know, you would have me ordering a pepperoni pizza, which isn't a very strong argument... :) I could argue that. But it would be a bit disingenuous as I don’t know what it means. For all I know, you would have me ordering a pepperoni pizza, which isn’t a very strong argument… :)

]]> By: P.M.Lawrence http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49020 P.M.Lawrence Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:38:09 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49020 You could always argue <I>De minimis non curat Lex</I> if the police were slightly nearer than the cut off. You could always argue De minimis non curat Lex if the police were slightly nearer than the cut off.

]]> By: TerjeP (say tay-a) http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/06/27/a-question/#comment-49019 TerjeP (say tay-a) Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:36:42 +0000 http://alsblog.wordpress.com/?p=711#comment-49019 Hammering home a subtle point seems rather novel, even if I do say so myself. Hammering home a subtle point seems rather novel, even if I do say so myself.

]]>