3 ms·

In percentage terms, didn't Australia's rate fall faster? It seems weird to say U.S. dropped "more" with these numbers.

by zxcmx 9y ago

FireBeyond 9y ago
It gets even worse when you limit it to firearm homicides (the initial numbers were all homicides), see my sibling comment.
rayiner 9y ago
It did not. From 1997, the first full year the law was in force, to 2002 (five years later), Australia's homicide rate went up 10%. It went down 14% in the U.S. over that time. It wasn't until 2002 that there was a sustained period of decline in Australian homicide rates. But the mandatory gun buyback was complete by September 1997! And the long-term drop in homicides starting in 2002 coincided with a sustained increase in firearms imports: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/firearm_imports_number http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/firearm_im.... So what you're supposed to believe is that a gun confiscation that was over by 1997 was responsible for a long-term decline in homicides that did not start until 2002, which coincided with a sustained period of guns per capita returning toward pre-confiscation levels.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2002&locations=AU&start=1997 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2002... It went up, from 315, to 342. A ten percent increase in homicides in the US is notable. The same in a population The size of the above falls within the realm of statistically significant. You're really drawing conclusions the data doesn't support.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    You’re the one trying to use this data to prove that the gun confiscation had an effect on homicides. If now you’re saying that there was no statistically significant change in homicide rates five years after the government destroyed over 600,000 guns, then you’re severely undermining your point. The gun buyback isn’t something you’d expect to have a delayed impact on homicides. Certain weapons were banned, they were confiscated, and the program was over by 1997. Those guns could not be used to kill people. The number of guns started to go back up right after, as well.

In percentage terms, didn't Australia's rate fall faster? It seems weird to say U.S. dropped "more" with these numbers.

by zxcmx 9y ago

In percentage terms, didn't Australia's rate fall faster? It seems weird to say U.S. dropped "more" with these numbers.

It gets even worse when you limit it to firearm homicides (the initial numbers were all homicides), see my sibling comment.

rayiner 9y ago

It did not. From 1997, the first full year the law was in force, to 2002 (five years later), Australia's homicide rate went up 10%. It went down 14% in the U.S. over that time. It wasn't until 2002 that there was a sustained period of decline in Australian homicide rates. But the mandatory gun buyback was complete by September 1997! And the long-term drop in homicides starting in 2002 coincided with a sustained increase in firearms imports: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/firearm_imports_number http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/firearm_im.... So what you're supposed to believe is that a gun confiscation that was over by 1997 was responsible for a long-term decline in homicides that did not start until 2002, which coincided with a sustained period of guns per capita returning toward pre-confiscation levels.

FireBeyond 9y ago
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2002&locations=AU&start=1997 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2002... It went up, from 315, to 342. A ten percent increase in homicides in the US is notable. The same in a population The size of the above falls within the realm of statistically significant. You're really drawing conclusions the data doesn't support.
- rayiner 9y ago
  You’re the one trying to use this data to prove that the gun confiscation had an effect on homicides. If now you’re saying that there was no statistically significant change in homicide rates five years after the government destroyed over 600,000 guns, then you’re severely undermining your point. The gun buyback isn’t something you’d expect to have a delayed impact on homicides. Certain weapons were banned, they were confiscated, and the program was over by 1997. Those guns could not be used to kill people. The number of guns started to go back up right after, as well.