By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Chicago Concealed Carry: Murder Rate Drops to Lowest in 56 Years

Kasz216 on 09 April 2014
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
withdreday said:

Only because it's not hot outside in chicago yet. Conceled carry doesn't effect street gangs, so sadly it will rise back up.

The only way to stop it is to take all guns away, but it's 'merica, so that will never happen.

Actually the only way to reduce crime is to decriminalize all illegal drugs so that cartels don't have a monopoly on their sales, and so that the price of drugs decreases, allowing for more competition in the market. Drug prohibition is responsible for the majority of the violent crime in the United States. We need to target the incentives for violence rather than the means to enact it (there will always be some way to kill.) 

Not that I care either way, really, I don't.  But, banning firearms seems to have had a sustained impact on lowering the murder rate in Australia.


Are you sure?

 

Murder rate actually goes up... not down until far down the line. (Note, actually the same statistics you posted just put in a more accurate format.)

 

At a time by the way... when the US Murder rate was dropping.



Around the Network
Assyrian612 on 09 April 2014

Ohhh yeah I love my city!! Go Bears!!



 

sc94597 on 09 April 2014
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
withdreday said:

Only because it's not hot outside in chicago yet. Conceled carry doesn't effect street gangs, so sadly it will rise back up.

The only way to stop it is to take all guns away, but it's 'merica, so that will never happen.

Actually the only way to reduce crime is to decriminalize all illegal drugs so that cartels don't have a monopoly on their sales, and so that the price of drugs decreases, allowing for more competition in the market. Drug prohibition is responsible for the majority of the violent crime in the United States. We need to target the incentives for violence rather than the means to enact it (there will always be some way to kill.) 

Not that I care either way, really, I don't.  But, banning firearms seems to have had a sustained impact on lowering the murder rate in Australia.

Yes, but all other violent crime went up. 

Ok...but people are still alive?  Right?  Far easier to heal/recover from a violent crime, than death.

It depends. Would you rather have five thousand persons raped or robbed so that one person is not murdered(not saying those are the actual statistics, but to make a point.) 

Here are your government statistics. Murders seemed negligible before and after 1997 (not even registered on the chart.) Assault seems to be increasing steadily, while everything else is held constant. 

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

 

Interestingly though your claim that the gun control led to fewer homicides is disputed by your government.  

"The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996)."

Yeah...my Government claims allot of things that are patently false. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

The American Government also considers Marijuana to be on par with heroin and ecstacy.  Long story short, you can discover more truth on your own than listening to anyone in the halls of power in the American Government.

Oh I only cited your government because it had a bias toward your position (being the ones who proposed the idea that returning guns will lead to fewer homicides.) Nevertheless, I don't trust government statistics myself, being an anti-statist and all. 

Anyway, the source you linked cites the exact same source. Did you read your link? The only difference is that your link distorts the truth, 

" but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available."

 "The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996). "

 

Oh and then your link goes on to cite this,

http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf



mornelithe on 09 April 2014
Kasz216 said:
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
withdreday said:

Only because it's not hot outside in chicago yet. Conceled carry doesn't effect street gangs, so sadly it will rise back up.

The only way to stop it is to take all guns away, but it's 'merica, so that will never happen.

Actually the only way to reduce crime is to decriminalize all illegal drugs so that cartels don't have a monopoly on their sales, and so that the price of drugs decreases, allowing for more competition in the market. Drug prohibition is responsible for the majority of the violent crime in the United States. We need to target the incentives for violence rather than the means to enact it (there will always be some way to kill.) 

Not that I care either way, really, I don't.  But, banning firearms seems to have had a sustained impact on lowering the murder rate in Australia.


Are you sure?

 

Murder actually goes up... not down until far down the line.

 

At a time by the way... when the US Murder rate was dropping.

 

The only thing I'm sure about is that website looks about as professional as insiderp, which should tell you something.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf



Kasz216 on 09 April 2014
mornelithe said:

Yeah...my Government claims allot of things that are patently false. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

The American Government also considers Marijuana to be on par with heroin and ecstacy.  Long story short, you can discover more truth on your own than listening to anyone in the halls of power in the American Government.

How do you look at that and conclude that gun control was lowered?  

Things stay even for almost a decade after the gun control passed.

Even if you think it's legislation based... you don't think ANYTHING to combat crome happened between 96 and 04?

Meanwhile, the US actually saw much more drastic drops in murder over the same period.

 

The main flaw with both your and the OP's arguements is they both focus only on the area effected by the law... without bothering to get a control sample.



Around the Network
mornelithe on 09 April 2014
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
withdreday said:

Only because it's not hot outside in chicago yet. Conceled carry doesn't effect street gangs, so sadly it will rise back up.

The only way to stop it is to take all guns away, but it's 'merica, so that will never happen.

Actually the only way to reduce crime is to decriminalize all illegal drugs so that cartels don't have a monopoly on their sales, and so that the price of drugs decreases, allowing for more competition in the market. Drug prohibition is responsible for the majority of the violent crime in the United States. We need to target the incentives for violence rather than the means to enact it (there will always be some way to kill.) 

Not that I care either way, really, I don't.  But, banning firearms seems to have had a sustained impact on lowering the murder rate in Australia.

Yes, but all other violent crime went up. 

Ok...but people are still alive?  Right?  Far easier to heal/recover from a violent crime, than death.

It depends. Would you rather have five thousand persons raped or robbed so that one person is not murdered(not saying those are the actual statistics, but to make a point.) 

Here are your government statistics. Murders seemed negligible before and after 1997 (not even registered on the chart.) Assault seems to be increasing steadily, while everything else is held constant. 

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

 

Interestingly though your claim that the gun control led to fewer homicides is disputed by your government.  

"The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996)."

Yeah...my Government claims allot of things that are patently false. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

The American Government also considers Marijuana to be on par with heroin and ecstacy.  Long story short, you can discover more truth on your own than listening to anyone in the halls of power in the American Government.

Oh I only cited your government because it had a bias toward your position (being the ones who proposed the idea that returning guns will lead to fewer homicides.) Nevertheless, I don't trust government statistics myself, being an anti-statist and all. 

Anyway, the source you linked cites the exact same source. Did you read your link? The only difference is that your link distorts the truth, 

" but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available."

 "The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996). "

Yeah, I read the article.  I simply noted that over the period since the ban, gun violence has dropped.  There are a few spikes, absolutely, but, overall the effect seems to be positive, right?



sc94597 on 09 April 2014
mornelithe said:

Yeah, I read the article.  I simply noted that over the period since the ban, gun violence has dropped.  There are a few spikes, absolutely, but, overall the effect seems to be positive, right?

Alright, but total homicides has remained pretty much constant. Does it matter if somebody is killed by a gun or something else? 



Mr Khan on 09 April 2014

Correlation =! Causation?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

mornelithe on 09 April 2014
Kasz216 said:
mornelithe said:

Yeah...my Government claims allot of things that are patently false. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

The American Government also considers Marijuana to be on par with heroin and ecstacy.  Long story short, you can discover more truth on your own than listening to anyone in the halls of power in the American Government.

How do you look at that and conclude that gun control was lowered?  

Things stay even for almost a decade after the gun control passed.

Even if you think it's legislation based... you don't think ANYTHING to combat crome happened between 96 and 04?

Meanwhile, the US actually saw much more drastic drops in murder over the same period.

Well, as I said originally, I don't really care either way (actually, that's unfair, I do care, just as long as the homicides drop...how we get there is where I'm willing to go with ideas).  Enforce the laws we already have, or ban weapons altogether.  But, ignoring laws on the books is obnoxious, and targeting assault weapons when hand guns are the overwhelming cause of gun violence is silly.  I don't presume to have all the answers, but I hate looking at the gun related homicides in the US yearly, and think there's nothing we can do to stop it.

You're also pointing out the peaks in Australia, but overlooking the peaks in the US.  Why is that?  It doesn't help your end of the discussion to point out faulty logic on my part, while using the same faulty logic in yours.  Case in point...32,163 people died by firearms in 2011.  That number hasn't steadily declined...that number has steadily increased since 1999.

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So, what does any of this mean?  Are we on the right track?  Or the wrong track?  While that number still climbs yearly, I consider us being on the wrong track.



Kasz216 on 09 April 2014
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:

Yeah, I read the article.  I simply noted that over the period since the ban, gun violence has dropped.  There are a few spikes, absolutely, but, overall the effect seems to be positive, right?

Alright, but total homicides has remained pretty much constant. Does it matter if somebody is killed by a gun or something else? 

You know, your arguement would be a lot more compelling if you did a little more research.

As the same thing is true in the US more or less.

I'm going to leave these here for you....

 

http://socialcapitalreview.org/new-doj-report-u-s-firearm-homicide-rate-at-18-year-low/