The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[Loren Pechtel]

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban.

Oh please. Enlighten me LP explain to me the particular distinctions between gun violence and mass shootings which are different and do not constitute gun violence...

Total strawman.

I've never said mass shootings aren't gun violence.

What I'm saying is that gun violence covers a lot more than just mass shootings. Australia's gun murder rate didn't change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

You still don't seem to be able to READ ENGLISH.

Please review the bolded parts of the post above.

There is an overall declining trend line to the murder rate. The gun ban didn't change that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When Eddie's uncle would make a distinction between 'blacks' and 'niggers' the idea was probably that 'niggers are blacks who don't know their place.'

Actually, it was more like "niggers are everything black people aspire NOT to be, everything black people do that they wish they would stop doing, everything that happens in the black community that black people wish didn't happen."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You still don't seem to be able to READ ENGLISH.

Please review the bolded parts of the post above.

There is an overall declining trend line to the murder rate. The gun ban didn't change that.

Covered in the study: the decline in the rate of gun violence is proportional to participation in the buyback program in various states. It actually appears that the only reason the homicide rate was as high as it was is BECAUSE Australians had access to firearms. Reducing that access made it a lot harder for them to kill each other, so -- amazingly -- they stopped doing it as much.

Imagine that! People kill each other less often when it's harder to do!

 

[bilby]

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban.

Citation Needed.

You honestly think that gun violence is only mass shootings??

For the hard of thinking, allow me to remove the part of your post that you are using to confuse yourself.

And btw, I can tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence - but I don't need to in this context, as both are down in Australia since Port Arthur.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please. Enlighten me LP explain to me the particular distinctions between gun violence and mass shootings which are different and do not constitute gun violence...

Total strawman.

I've never said mass shootings aren't gun violence.

What I'm saying is that gun violence covers a lot more than just mass shootings. Australia's gun murder rate didn't change.

Citation needed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is an overall declining trend line to the murder rate. The gun ban didn't change that.

Covered in the study: the decline in the rate of gun violence is proportional to participation in the buyback program in various states. It actually appears that the only reason the homicide rate was as high as it was is BECAUSE Australians had access to firearms. Reducing that access made it a lot harder for them to kill each other, so -- amazingly -- they stopped doing it as much.

Imagine that! People kill each other less often when it's harder to do!

If the gun ban had an effect the curve should inflect at the time of the ban. It didn't.

Showing that the rate was higher before than after is a red herring.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Covered in the study: the decline in the rate of gun violence is proportional to participation in the buyback program in various states. It actually appears that the only reason the homicide rate was as high as it was is BECAUSE Australians had access to firearms. Reducing that access made it a lot harder for them to kill each other, so -- amazingly -- they stopped doing it as much.

Imagine that! People kill each other less often when it's harder to do!

If the gun ban had an effect the curve should inflect at the time of the ban. It didn't.

Showing that the rate was higher before than after is a red herring.

Are you fucking serious?! You can't tell the effects of an action by... measuring the effects of that action?!

You're either being sarcastic right now, or this is literally the dumbest thing you have ever posted in your life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the gun ban had an effect the curve should inflect at the time of the ban. It didn't.

Showing that the rate was higher before than after is a red herring.

Are you fucking serious?! You can't tell the effects of an action by... measuring the effects of that action?!

You're either being sarcastic right now, or this is literally the dumbest thing you have ever posted in your life.

The problem is you are using the wrong yardstick to do the measuring.

The gun violence rate was going down before the ban. It was going down after the ban. You are using that to try to show the ban helped but that's bad logic. What's important is the curve, not the absolute values. The curve didn't change, thus the ban had no measurable effect on the gun violence rate. Stopping the mass shooters--something that gun bans are reasonably effective at--doesn't show up because it's such a small percent of the total.

 

[beero1000]

Silly Australians should've just waited until gun crime was rising before enacting their legislation; then we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Are you fucking serious?! You can't tell the effects of an action by... measuring the effects of that action?!

You're either being sarcastic right now, or this is literally the dumbest thing you have ever posted in your life.

The problem is you are using the wrong yardstick to do the measuring.

The gun violence rate was going down before the ban. It was going down after the ban...

Earlier you said:

What I'm saying is that gun violence covers a lot more than just mass shootings. Australia's gun murder rate didn't change.

So the gun murder rate didn't change? Or the gun murder rate DID change but it had nothing to do with the gun ban anyway? Those are two contradictory claims.

But this is the kind of confusing shit that happens when all of your information is COMPLETELY MADE UP. Cite a source for EITHER of those claims or stop pushing them.

You are using that to try to show the ban helped but that's bad logic. What's important is the curve, not the absolute values.

Bullshit. Australia's OVERALL homicide rate has remained relatively steady since the mid 1980s and shows no marked period of decline or increase beyond statistical fluctuations. In fact, the rate of violent crimes actually INCREASED sharply between 1996 and 2002 before falling again, finally achieving record lows around 2012.

During this same time period, gun-related injuries, suicides and homicides ALL decreased, even during that 6 year period where the frequency of armed robbery almost doubled and the rate of sexual assault increased by 20%.

In other words, the rate of violence INCREASED, while the rate of gun violence DECREASED.

Which you would have known if you had bothered to do any actual research instead of just pulling excuses out of your ass on the assumption that sooner or later you would make a guess that was not-entirely-wrong.

Stick to facts, dude.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is you are using the wrong yardstick to do the measuring.

The gun violence rate was going down before the ban. It was going down after the ban...

Earlier you said:

What I'm saying is that gun violence covers a lot more than just mass shootings. Australia's gun murder rate didn't change.

So the gun murder rate didn't change? Or the gun murder rate DID change but it had nothing to do with the gun ban anyway? Those are two contradictory claims.

But this is the kind of confusing shit that happens when all of your information is COMPLETELY MADE UP. Cite a source for EITHER of those claims or stop pushing them.

You are using that to try to show the ban helped but that's bad logic. What's important is the curve, not the absolute values.

Bullshit. Australia's OVERALL homicide rate has remained relatively steady since the mid 1980s and shows no marked period of decline or increase beyond statistical fluctuations. In fact, the rate of violent crimes actually INCREASED sharply between 1996 and 2002 before falling again, finally achieving record lows around 2012.

During this same time period, gun-related injuries, suicides and homicides ALL decreased, even during that 6 year period where the frequency of armed robbery almost doubled and the rate of sexual assault increased by 20%.

In other words, the rate of violence INCREASED, while the rate of gun violence DECREASED.

Which you would have known if you had bothered to do any actual research instead of just pulling excuses out of your ass on the assumption that sooner or later you would make a guess that was not-entirely-wrong.

Stick to facts, dude.

I worded it poorly the first time.

The gun ban had no effect on the gun murder rate. It was going down, it continued down at the same rate. There was no change due to the ban.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I worded it poorly the first time.

You bullshitted poorly the first time. You had and have no source to back that claim up.

The gun ban had no effect on the gun murder rate.

Yes it did.

It was going down

No it wasn't. It began to decline sharply in the years after the ban, even when the rate of violent crimes and even the rate of homicides otherwise INCREASED in the same time period.

There was no change due to the ban.

Yes, there was. Even when the rate of violent crime increased after 1996, a smaller portion of those crimes involved firearms than ever before in Australia's history. And again, the decline in gun violence is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the rate of participation in the buyback program and inversely proportional to the number of citizens who continue to legally own guns.

You can repeat this bullshit statistic as many times as you want. It's still wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You bullshitted poorly the first time. You had and have no source to back that claim up.

The gun ban had no effect on the gun murder rate.

Yes it did.

It was going down

No it wasn't. It began to decline sharply in the years after the ban, even when the rate of violent crimes and even the rate of homicides otherwise INCREASED in the same time period.

There was no change due to the ban.

Yes, there was. Even when the rate of violent crime increased after 1996, a smaller portion of those crimes involved firearms than ever before in Australia's history. And again, the decline in gun violence is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the rate of participation in the buyback program and inversely proportional to the number of citizens who continue to legally own guns.

You can repeat this bullshit statistic as many times as you want. It's still wrong.

Compare the actual data to the trend line. See any decline? If anything it's showing a small increase.

The gun-banners are using that trend line as evidence the gun ban worked when it should be obvious that they're just taking credit for what would have happened anyway.

 

[bilby]

You bullshitted poorly the first time. You had and have no source to back that claim up.


Yes it did.

It was going down

No it wasn't. It began to decline sharply in the years after the ban, even when the rate of violent crimes and even the rate of homicides otherwise INCREASED in the same time period.

There was no change due to the ban.

Yes, there was. Even when the rate of violent crime increased after 1996, a smaller portion of those crimes involved firearms than ever before in Australia's history. And again, the decline in gun violence is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the rate of participation in the buyback program and inversely proportional to the number of citizens who continue to legally own guns.

You can repeat this bullshit statistic as many times as you want. It's still wrong.

Compare the actual data to the trend line. See any decline? If anything it's showing a small increase.

The gun-banners are using that trend line as evidence the gun ban worked when it should be obvious that they're just taking credit for what would have happened anyway.

'Homicide rate' != 'Gun homicide rate'; as gun homicides are rare in Australia, it's unsurprising that they are lost in the noise when a graph is deliberately chosen to conceal the information that it pretends to reveal.

And we should expect no better from a website called 'gunfacts.info', which is clearly a biased source.

 

[laughing dog]

According to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp), independent researchers have verified that the gun homicide rate in Australia has dropped significantly since the enactment of the gun ban. There is some debate as to how much of that drop is attributable to the gun ban.

IMO, it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You bullshitted poorly the first time. You had and have no source to back that claim up.


Yes it did.

It was going down

No it wasn't. It began to decline sharply in the years after the ban, even when the rate of violent crimes and even the rate of homicides otherwise INCREASED in the same time period.

There was no change due to the ban.

Yes, there was. Even when the rate of violent crime increased after 1996, a smaller portion of those crimes involved firearms than ever before in Australia's history. And again, the decline in gun violence is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the rate of participation in the buyback program and inversely proportional to the number of citizens who continue to legally own guns.

You can repeat this bullshit statistic as many times as you want. It's still wrong.

Compare the actual data to the trend line. See any decline? If anything it's showing a small increase.

The gun-banners are using that trend line as evidence the gun ban worked when it should be obvious that they're just taking credit for what would have happened anyway.

'Homicide rate' != 'Gun homicide rate'; as gun homicides are rare in Australia, it's unsurprising that they are lost in the noise when a graph is deliberately chosen to conceal the information that it pretends to reveal.

And we should expect no better from a website called 'gunfacts.info', which is clearly a biased source.

Why would banning guns reduce non-gun homicides?

And bias only matters if you're saying the data in the graph is false. I simply went looking for a graph of the data, that's the first decent one that came up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp), independent researchers have verified that the gun homicide rate in Australia has dropped significantly since the enactment of the gun ban. There is some debate as to how much of that drop is attributable to the gun ban.

As my graph shows, the homicide rate was declining anyway. What I'm saying is the gun-banners are taking credit for this decline.

IMO, it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.

Actually, it does make sense--because gun bans do basically nothing about armed criminals. Gun bans only disarm the law abiding until they have been in place for long enough (and that's a very long time!) for the criminal guns to be removed from circulation.

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

Which carefully omits the pre-ban trend line data.

 

[bilby]

You bullshitted poorly the first time. You had and have no source to back that claim up.


Yes it did.

It was going down

No it wasn't. It began to decline sharply in the years after the ban, even when the rate of violent crimes and even the rate of homicides otherwise INCREASED in the same time period.

There was no change due to the ban.

Yes, there was. Even when the rate of violent crime increased after 1996, a smaller portion of those crimes involved firearms than ever before in Australia's history. And again, the decline in gun violence is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the rate of participation in the buyback program and inversely proportional to the number of citizens who continue to legally own guns.

You can repeat this bullshit statistic as many times as you want. It's still wrong.

Compare the actual data to the trend line. See any decline? If anything it's showing a small increase.

The gun-banners are using that trend line as evidence the gun ban worked when it should be obvious that they're just taking credit for what would have happened anyway.

'Homicide rate' != 'Gun homicide rate'; as gun homicides are rare in Australia, it's unsurprising that they are lost in the noise when a graph is deliberately chosen to conceal the information that it pretends to reveal.

And we should expect no better from a website called 'gunfacts.info', which is clearly a biased source.

Why would banning guns reduce non-gun homicides?

It wouldn't. Which renders your graph irrelevant

And bias only matters if you're saying the data in the graph is false. I simply went looking for a graph of the data, that's the first decent one that came up.

Selecting a dataset that cannot possibly show the effect you are seeking to refute, is bias.

The gun ban in Australia also had no measurable effect on total deaths from all causes worldwide; that's not evidence that it wasn't effective, just evidence that the chosen dataset can easily be selected to conceal, rather than to reveal, any effects.

This is simple and blatant abuse of statistics; and I don't believe that the people presenting this data are unaware of this. It's deliberate bias.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why would banning guns reduce non-gun homicides?

It didn't. Banning guns reduced GUN-related homicides and also reduced the rate of suicides and overall use of guns in other violent crimes (e.g. robberies, rapes, home invasions, etc).

And bias only matters if you're saying the data in the graph is false.

It's not false, it just irrelevant. You said

"Australia's gun murder rate didn't change."

This graph doesn't show the "gun murder rate" and any attempt to claim that it DOES can be explained by it coming from a biased source that wants to pretend that it does.

 

[laughing dog]

As my graph shows, the homicide rate was declining anyway. What I'm saying is the gun-banners are taking credit for this decline.

IMO, it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.

Actually, it does make sense--because gun bans do basically nothing about armed criminals. Gun bans only disarm the law abiding until they have been in place for long enough (and that's a very long time!) for the criminal guns to be removed from circulation.

That does not address "it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.".

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

Which carefully omits the pre-ban trend line data.

I produced data. You have produced nothing but hand-waving non-responses.