Snopes "debunks" Australian Gun Statistics (Freeper discussion/rebuttal desired)

Snopes.com ^ | 28 January 2004 | Barbara and David P. Mikkelson

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Claim:   Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Freeper comments? It would be nice to rebut the rebuttal, if possible.

[lowbridge]

bump

[lowbridge]

bump

[The Duke]

I've just got one question - how can you shoot tyrants if you don't have a gun?

[NittanyLion]

Snopes' analysis looks accurate to me. Moral of the story: gun owners need to rely on appropriate statistics when attempting to condemn gun control, lest we end up like Michael Bellesiles.

[lowbridge]

Online Rumor Mill Spins Its Own Myth(Snopes.com's leftwing bias undercuts its credibility)

[Always Right]

Funny, Snoopes didn't contradict anything that was said, but just did not like the spin of it. In this case, Snoopes wasn't discrediting the item as much as it discredited itself. All Snoopes did was try to respin the numbers, exposing his/their own gun-grabbing agenda.

[COEXERJ145]

Three kinds of lies:

Lies

Damned Lies

Statistics

[Always Right]

I reached the same conclusion before I saw you post.

[Monty22]

Probably the woman on the site that wrote this. Snopes is pretty awesome, but they sure lean left a lot.

[Old Sarge]

Snopes.com is a Leftist site, run by Leftists, and supporting a Leftist agenda.

They have gone to great lengths to de-bunk the Clinton Body Count, and have posted a Bush Body Count on their site.

Their "coming out" party was the combat phase of Iraqi Freedom, when their webblonde tried to justify their anti-war/Bush/US stance with lib-jargon.

I urge all FReepers not to give these pathetics the Web hit they so desperately need.

[BigBobber]

experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%).

1) 7 x 1.71 = 12, not 19. The author is an idiot.

2) The author says an increase of 12 homocides out a population of 4.5 million is not significant, yet he misses the obvious. If there were previously only about 7 annual firearms homocides in that population, why the urgent need to eliminate firearms? Why is 7 significant when 12 is not?

[Zeppo]

This is easy - although it does cast some doubt on whether certain assertions are supported by the statistics, the Snopes piece is not actually a rebuttal. It is a valid discussion of how to understand statistics in context. The Snopes piece, for example, does not disprove the assertion that the gun buyback may have been a causal factor in the increase in crimes or the increase in homicides in Australia. It does provide sound advice for interpreting statistics given by anyone in support of any assertion. So, the same techniques may be used to dissect all sorts of looney claims made by leftists, such as the "George Bush has the worst job creation/loss record since Herbert Hoover" lies.

[longtermmemmory]

Snopes did not dispute it, just spun it. It looks like they were just trying to muddy the waters with even more numbers to dispute the situation of "criminals are better armed".

Someone at snopes must be antigun.

Will snopes do an analysis of "thereagans" from CBS.

[Travis McGee]

BANG!

[NittanyLion]

7 x 1.71 = 12, not 19. The author is an idiot.

You need to add the original 7...the author's math is accurate.

[CzarNicky]

Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%).

If an increase from 7 to 19 homicides happened in a pro gun state the calls for something to be done (gun control) would be deafening.

[Zeppo]

>>1) 7 x 1.71 = 12, not 19. The author is an idiot.

A 171 percent increase would be on top of the quoted base, so 12 + 7 = 19.

For example, a 10 percent increase would be 7 + 0.1 X 7, which equals 7.7. A 100 percent increase would be 7 + 1.0 X 7, which equals 14. A 171 percent increase would be 7 + 1.71 X 7, which equals 19.

So, I think that the author is correct.

[go star go]

his own numbers show a 21 percent increase in three years. he says that's no dramatic. i saw he's goofy.

[Travis McGee]

Does Snopes have any rebuttals of the insane and absurd Million Mom March and VPC "statistics" such as "39 children die every day from handgun accidents" and so on?

It seems to me that the anti lies are 1000 times for flagrant than ours.