Violent crime in Australia

[vitualis]

I'm curious as to where this STRANGE American perception that violent crime has "skyrocketed" ( https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673210#673210 ) in Australia since the ban on guns have come from... I live in Australia and I have not heard of this new wave of violent crime.

Just to be sure, I looked up the Australian Institute of Criminology's statistics for the recent years... http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html

As you can see, a fairly steady and gradual increase over the recent years. No sudden "skyrocketing" anywhere. And definitely not "up 500%" as per the previous member's post.

The proportion of homicides due to a firearm has decreased:
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/type.html

The rate of homicides haven't really changed at all (definitely no big increase):
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/hvr.html

For you Americans, take note of the very very low rate of homicide.

In this country (the U.S.), interviews with jailed criminals have revealed the criminals greatest fears - that of confronting an armed victim and getting their asses shot off. In England and Australia, this concern has been removed (by legislation) from the minds of the criminals.

I don't know how true that is. The truth is, in Australia, I have absolutely no fear of being shot by anyone, even if I'm unfortunate enough to happen to be the victim of a robbery or something similar.

Anyway, I'm curious as to where this American myth has come from...

Regards.

[Solarjetman]

I never heard anything about crime going up in Australia. True or not, no one is talking about it over here in the US.

The big stories here are the California Governor election (which it seems Arnold Schwarzenegger won) and the national "do not call" list. And of course Iraq.

[thayne]

I don't know how true that is. The truth is, in Australia, I have absolutely no fear of being shot by anyone, even if I'm unfortunate enough to happen to be the victim of a robbery or something similar.

You'd rather be stabbed or beaten to death??? If someone robs me they will be the ones getting shot, not me

[vitualis]

Well, the chances of me being stabbed or beaten to death is somewhat less than being shot to death in the US...

Homicide rate in Australia: 1.9 (2001-2002)
Homicide rate in USA: 5.5 (2000)

It is interesting to note that the homicide rate in Australia has never changed all that much. The homicide rate in the US has been up to 10 per 100 000!

By the way, some interesting comparisons...

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html

Total violent crimes recorded by police: about 1000 per 100 000 (or 1 per 1000) population in Australia.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (USA): http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

... the total violent crime rate is about 20 per 1000 population in the USA.

Assuming that there is a difference in data collection and analysis, if we look at the raw data of violent crimes reported to police: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm (i.e., about 1.5 million) and say the popn of the US is 290 million ( http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ), then that still gives a rate of 5 per 1000 head of population.



Is there crime in Australia? Yes
Has crime been increasing? Yes
Is there a 500% increase in violent crime? No
Do I think that there is less crime in Australia than in the US? Possibly (but probably about the same overall)
Do I think that I would be much less likely to be killed by a firearm in Australia? Yes



Regards.

[pacmania_2001]

I believe the myth (I've heard it as well) was spread by the NRA and the anti-gun control lobby.

I actually remember seeing a billboard stating something along the lines of "Since Australia has introduced gun control, violent crimes have skyrocketed" in Nevada when we were travelling around. I'm not sure what group was responsible for it though.

[ChrisX]

There was a news report yesterday morning of an overnight bashing murder of a homeless man in the CBD of Sydney. Yes, in the center of the city at around 1.00 am.

The homeless man was sleeping near George Street beside a war memorial and he was bashed to death with a sledgehammer.

I don't normally hear a report like this here and so unusual. I normally hear a report like this to be from New York or from any such city in the US.

I hear reports of crime with guns from the US almost every day. The crime rate is so much worse in the US compared to here in Australia. Too many guns in the US and the Americans are gun trigger happy and gun mad.

I heard another report recently of a child accidentally killed his sister to death with unattended gun. Do the gun owners have any safety sense of having guns lying around the house? The Americans have too many guns and they must stop.

I've been in New York several times and I remember at one time during 1994 there were 36,000 gun murders in 6 months. This very much a lot more than in Australia. I don’t think we have much more than 100-150 murders a year in the State of NSW in Australia.

Our crime rate is very, very low compared to the US and I don’t believe and heard of this rubbish suggesting of skyrocketing of crime here in Australia.

[Will Hay]

Count me in too Virtualis, I'd like to know where these crazy statements come from that violent crime is immense in gun-free(-ish) countires such as the UK and Australia.
It seems to me people spout of this rubbish only to justify the right to carry arms whilst taking your kiddies to school.
I too have absolutley no fear of dying from gun related crime, and if these 'statistics' (which are no doubt about to be generated) are people dying as a result from participating in gun grime then so be it, you reap what you sow in this life.
Will Hay

[Devanshu]

I agree w/ solar...I've never heard of crime rates going up anywhere else. What people are really talking about are the california recall, the whole iraq thing and bush not finding WMD's(what ever happened to that anyway), and people getting fat and suing fast food places

[RabidDog]

sounds like summat Chuck Heston would say. Right to bear arms justification. Desperate fear that restrictions on gun use may be tightened in AMerica when they realsie that banning handguns does reduce gun related deaths ... duh.

[g_shocker182]

You know Hitler banned guns in Germany during his rule...

[SLK001]

English-style gun laws have failed in Australia too. In 1997, the Australian federal
government panicked, following the horrific murders by a deranged man in 1996, and
banned and confiscated 600,000 semi-automatic “military style” firearms from their
licenced owners (Lawson 1999). The result? Violent crime continues to increase.

The destruction of the confiscated firearms cost Australian taxpayers an estimated $A
500 million, and there has been no visible impact on violent crime. Robbery and armed
robbery rates continue to escalate. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide --
jumping from 30 per 100,000 in 1996 to 50 per 100,000 in 1999 (AIC, 2001). The
homicide rate has not declined, and the share of firearm homicide involving handguns has
doubled in the past five years (Mouzos 2001). As in Great Britain and Canada, few
firearms used in homicide are legally held; in 99/00 only 12 out of 65 (18%) were
identified as being misused by their legal owner (Mouzos 2001).
(PARAGRAPH FROM THIS SITE:
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/saf/GCAW290702.doc.pdf )

Here's a link about a couple of enterprising young lads in Britian:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,12079,1056411,00.html

Here's a link about my Brit friends living in fear:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003322453,00.html

There are more, but I don't have the time to find them today. Will look for more tomorrow, IF this thread is still open!

[thayne]

sounds like summat Chuck Heston would say. Right to bear arms justification. Desperate fear that restrictions on gun use may be tightened in AMerica when they realsie that banning handguns does reduce gun related deaths ... duh.

Maybe we should ban cars too? Cars kill a lot more people than guns do. Better ban old age too, old age kills 100% of the people who have it.

[Conquest10]

So, according to SLK001, violent crimes are almost non-existent in the US and crimes commited with guns are all guns that have been legally obtained.

[RabidDog]

I quite agree about the horrific death toll of cars, if they were any other device they would be banned. But politicians and most people either ignore or overlook the motorist death toll. Not to mention the indirect deaths by pollution and lack of exercise. Banning legal guns simply restricts the supply, criminals will still get guns but it makes it easier to prosecute people with guns, before they are used for their stated purpose (killing people).

I bet crme in germany was almost non existent during the second world war, I know crime was at very low levels in UK during WW2.

[mysticgohan17]

guns banned there, boomerangs illegal (in some states) here. not even a fair trade.

[thayne]

I bet crme in germany was almost non existent during the second world war, I know crime was at very low levels in UK during WW2.

Tell that to the 6 million jews who were murdered.... If they were armed it would not have happened....

[RabidDog]

most jews were killed in Poland, treblinka dachaua. Belsen. NFC. too controversial.

[g_shocker182]

Its not the where its the who.

[Conquest10]

Tell that to the 6 million jews who were murdered...

I don't think 6 million jews were murdered in Germany during WWII.

[vitualis]

Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide --
jumping from 30 per 100,000 in 1996 to 50 per 100,000 in 1999 (AIC, 2001). The homicide rate has not declined, and the share of firearm homicide involving handguns has doubled in the past five years.

Yes, but the point is the trend. Did you even look at the AIC statistics? Or are you simply mindlessly repeating what someone else has said?

I agree that the firearm ban hasn't made much of a difference to violent crime. Read hasn't made a difference. The trend was going up before the ban/amnesty. It has been going up at pretty much the same rate after it.

The simple matter is that guns weren't used in violent crime all that often in Australia in any case, and as such, removing them from society hasn't made all that much of a difference.

As for the homicide rate, it has not decreased, but the proportion due to firearms has.

As for living in fear, shit, everyone is living in fear according to the tabloid newspapers...

Again, have a look at the aforementioned homicide rates between the US and Australia.

The US has 290% (since you like big percentages) the homicide rate when compared to Australia and the majority of them are from a firearm.

In Australia, not only do we have much less homicide, the majority of those homicides are not with a firearm.

Regards.

[vitualis]

You know Hitler banned guns in Germany during his rule...

You know, Hitler probably used toothpaste and shampoo too...

And he probably wore underwear and trimmed his moustache.

What's the point? There is none... just like your statement "Hitler banned guns in Germany during his rule" has no point as it is simply an association of two facts.



Regards.

[gmatov]

Vitualis,

You're going to have to go back to your 2nd post and revise the Australian result.

1000 per 100,000 is 1 per 100, not 1 per 1000. That means, distributed evenly, 1 % of your population would be victim of a violent crime each year.

I think you are less safe than you think.

Also, the US DOJ data does not distinguish firearms deaths from police shootings, justified civilian self-defense shooting, suicides, accidental deaths.

Nor do they compile records of the number of times firearms are used to prevent a crime, either in self defense or to intervene in a crime being committed with someone else as the victim.

Gary Kleck and Prof John Lott have done research in this subject and find that guns are used from 1 to 2 1/2 million times per year to prevent crimes.

These crimes unconsummated are rarely reported to the law for various reasons, not least of which is that many occur in New York, Chicago, and Washington DC, 3 areas of the country that absolutely prohibit the ownership of a handgun unless you are rich and well connected, politically.

I have read that the UK has many times the "hot" burglaries that the US has, those in which the residents are at home. In the US, as stated elsewhere, in states where defense of one's self is not illegal, burglars/smash in artists fear being shot by the residents, so wait till the house is empty.

My own state of Pennsylvania, prior to "Shall Issue", required, by law, that the home owner retreat to the last vantage point he could, so far as to a porch roof, and if it was not to high to jump from with a fifty-fifty chance of surving the drop, you would be prosecuted if you shot them.

Ironic, isn't it, that in the UK, the source of the saying "A man's home is his Castle", you are jailed if you use a cricket wicket against an armed intruder, if he only has, say a putter. If he had a 9 iron, you might stand a chance with the courts.

In Australia, you'd probably be prosecuted if you used a frozen leg'o lamb.

Funny the other thread was locked after a poster said it seems to be getting political, probably gonna be locked, the handgun in the book sack thing..

I won't even mention the farmer who shot the Gypsy and couldn't be released on a helpless public because " he is a danger to burglars", actual quote from the parole board. I understand he is in a sefehouse now, as the Gyrsies have promised to kill him.

Great way to live, huh? Thrown out of your home because the law cannot protect you, and prohibits you from defending yourself.

I kinda like the statement issued to the police from the Top Brass that they are to ignore crimes they think they can't solve, as it's a waste of manpower. Tsk, tsk, this from the land of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot, and Misss Marple.

Sir Robert Peele must be spinning in his grave.

More when I have some time, 'less this one is locked by then, also.

Cheers,

George

[gmatov]

Michael,

I really should be asleep now, but one point....

Hitler DID NOT ban firearms, he registered them, then when it was time, he used the registry to disarm the Jews, but not the portion of the populace he deemed safe.

Conquest is right in his quibble, 6 million Jews were not killed in Germany, they were shipped from every country Hitler's armies defeated to his "branch" death camps. 6 million Jews WERE killed, and if you ever read, with an open mind, what all was done with them, you would resign from the Human race.

6 million "others", Serbs, my ancestors, Gypsies, "defectives", including what we today would call "learning disabled", homosexuals, anyone, basically, that he determined to be untermenschen got a trip to his ovens.

Every other country in the world with a dictatorship has done the same thing. Disarm the people. The Russians said it well, How could a Communist party, 5 % of the population, rule the country? That 5 % had all the guns.

George

[gmatov]

I think in the '30's, they used tooth powder.

[vitualis]

You're going to have to go back to your 2nd post and revise the Australian result.

1000 per 100,000 is 1 per 100, not 1 per 1000. That means, distributed evenly, 1 % of your population would be victim of a violent crime each year.

Yep, you are right... Whoops! Actually, this makes sense. I didn't think there was that much extra crime in the US when compared to Australia.

Also, the US DOJ data does not distinguish firearms deaths from police shootings, justified civilian self-defense shooting, suicides, accidental deaths.

Nor do they compile records of the number of times firearms are used to prevent a crime, either in self defense or to intervene in a crime being committed with someone else as the victim.

Gary Kleck and Prof John Lott have done research in this subject and find that guns are used from 1 to 2 1/2 million times per year to prevent crimes.

All true. However, you could equally argue on the theoretical number of "serious crimes prevented" because criminals don't fear being shot and hence tend not to escalate the violence (for example, armed robbery is not that uncommon in Australia, but it is very rare for the criminal to actually shoot someone).

Furthermore, the figues I have before on homicides are just that homicides. In any case the breakdown is simple. There are more homicides in the US when compared to Australia. If you look at the firearm related homicides when compared to Australia it is MUCH more (as around 50%, I think, of homicides in the US are with a firearm while only a small proportion in AU are with a firearm).

In any case, my belief is that you shouldn't believe in anecdotes. This is simply as it just skews the perception of the problem. I for one think that the current state of self defense laws in AU are quite fair. IMHO, self defense only allows you the right to defend yourself within limits. It doesn't give you the right to beat someone to a pulp or to murder them even if they are in the wrong.

I'm actually somewhat surprised by some of the attitudes on this forum. For example, one of the members stated by having a gun would mean that he could SHOOT someone who what trying to rob him. If someone robbed me but I didn't think he (or she) was going to harm me, I wouldn't wish injury or potentially DEATH on that person. I would want the police to catch the criminal and apply justice as appropriate.

Since there seem to be a lot of anecdotes on this thread, I'm going to add one of my own. I'm sure you Americans still remember the Columbine massacre. Furthermore, there seems to be a whole lot more incidents of other shootings in school or at least, kids being caught with guns at school. As an Aussie, I find that whole concept almost incomprehensible. If a kid here shot somebody else at school, hell, if a kid was even caught with a gun at school, it would make front page news across the country and there would be media and political debates no end.

For example, not to many years ago, there were high school kids caught having knives at school (and there may have been one stabbing outside of school) and that was big news -- in fact, it lead to a law where the selling of knives to people under 18 was illegal.

I guess we just live in different societies. Guns here are still regarded as a dangerous weapon, one that can easily be used to kill people -- and the benefits of having general civilian ownership is not felt to be justified at the risk to society.

Regards.

[pacmania_2001]

In Australia you can still shoot an intruder, just not with a semi or fully automatic gun. I still don't see the need for anyone (apart from in certain circumstances) to own a semi or fully automatic weapon.

We are allowed to defend ourselves against crime using reasonable force. That means that if justified we can use whatever weapon (at our disposal) to defend ourself.

I feel very safe in my house that I dont lock my doors nor do I carry a weapon nor do I lock the doors of my car when I'm driving around. It's because I know with the tighter gun control and licencing laws introduced that some intruder (normally an amatuer) is less likely to be carrying a gun (that if their weren't gun control laws would probably be purchased legally) and any injuries that arise are going to be mostly not fatal.

Personally though, if it's your choice to carry a firearm (legally) then I respect that just like I choose not to carry a firearm. I just think it's ironic that after events like Columbine you have the media and people in general asking how it happened.

[pacmania_2001]

Damn you Vitualis, beat me too most of my post.

Now if only I could find that leg of lamb I had lying around you would be in some serious trouble.

[vitualis]

Hitler DID NOT ban firearms, he registered them, then when it was time, he used the registry to disarm the Jews, but not the portion of the populace he deemed safe.

Seems to make sense to me if you are a dictator...

However, again, that is not really the issue at hand. IMHO, there is no reason why a civil democratic society run with a strong justice/legal system SHOULD have an armed citizentry (insofar as firearms in domestic life) and there are plenty of reasons against it.

Whether you have a "right" to bear arms (as per your US Constitution) is beside the point (you obviously have a right but is it a good idea in modern society?)

Regards.

[vitualis]

Now if only I could find that leg of lamb I had lying around you would be in some serious trouble.

Not while I can use my frozen beef sausages as nunchuckers...

Regards.

[pacmania_2001]

Whether you have a "right" to bear arms (as per your US Constitution) is beside the point (you obviously have a right but is it a good idea in modern society?)

That's what I like, when people say they have the right to own a firearm. I have the right to burn the Australian flag if I want to but I don't because I think thats just plain stupid.

One of my favourite quotes from Bowling for Columine (yes I know it stretched the truth a bit but so does every documentary):

Michael Moore: Now wait a minute... The Constitution says you've got the right to bear arms. What do you think 'arms' means?
John Nichols: Well it's not like these...
[waves his arms]
John Nichols: It means we ought to have handguns if we want to.
Michael Moore: What about nuclear weapons? Should you be able to have weapons-grade plutonium?
John Nichols: [pauses] ... Well I think that oughta be restricted.