Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
sc94597 said:
Hm? I was speaking of Australia, which according to:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
- 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).
It seems pretty constant to me. Or did you misquote?
|
My point was that in this thread you've been conceding points that totally aren't even really true when you compare directly to the US. US violent crime is down, and so are murders during the same time period.
|
Australia is as good a parallel as you're going to find in terms of culture and geography.
|
Which only goes to strengthen my point.
The US had huge murder and crime rate drops involving guns (and just in general) just like Australia. They actually happened quicker and sooner.
Generally these statistical arguements in regards to crime mostly seem to be done by statisicians chasing correlations they already know exist, and publishing it to make a point.
And correlations likely caused by a third factor. (Or third, fourth and fifth factor).
