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.

[BlackRain]

Snopes obviously has contempt for gun owners with the "liars" quote. Granted, there is not a "dramatic" increase in gun violence. However, there is a steady trend in gun related crime DESPITE the 1996 Gun Ban Law. You would think by banning guns the rate of crime would actually decrease not steadily increase. Using Snopes own reference: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ACFBFD6BA9EB3689CA256CAE001052A7 You can read the stats for yourself.

Between 1995 and 2001 there was a 61% increase in the assault victimisation rate involving a weapon, which equates to approximately 7,000 more victims in 2001 who had a weapon used against them than there were in 1995. If this is what passes for fact checking on Snopes, he/she is in for trouble.

[RedMonqey]

"the old adage says that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure," those who seek to influence public opinion often employ a variety of means to slant statistical figures into seemingly supporting their point of view:"

Completely irrelevant. Context has never been a problem with the anti2nd amend folks.
The anti gunners here always use gun related homicides statistics that INCLUDE suicides, accidents and dangerous felons lawfully killed by cops when THEY want to scare the population into thinking there is a tidal wave of gun induced violence. Go figure.

"....even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. "

So what did the government accomplish taking these few guns other than insure criminals were alone in having access to weapons?

Given the "before and after"crime figures this "bloke" triumphs as proof of successful government action, it seems to me that the $500 million dollars spent to take guns away from law abiding citizens was a TOTAL waste of taxpayer money that could have been spent to combat REAL CRIMINALS.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I read the analysis above and consider it, on the whole, to be right on target. It's not as in-depth as one could desire, but there's a very, very good reason for that: it is not, and does not pretend to be, a full analysis of the results of the Australian gun ban laws. It is merely a critique of some (quite ill-founded) claims made by pro-firearms / pro-self defense people. It that, it does a very good job, on the whole. The information presented is highly flawed, and snopes here does a good job of pointing out many of those flaws. No, I don't think they overstate their case.

A full analysis of the effects of the Australian gun laws (and how lessons resulting might apply to us) is much more complex than the simple (mis-)analysis presented.

I don't pretend to fully understand the trends and effects, but I'll make a couple of comments here in regard to Australia. Note that I am quoting from memory of my impressions and understanding from past reading. I will not be presenting evidence here, just my impressions.

1) Crime generally trended upward following the more restrictive gun control laws. It is unclear to me whether these increases in crime were caused by the gun control laws (lower fear on the part of criminals of encountering armed civilians), or whether they were merely a continuation of a previous trend of crime increase that had already begun due to other (cultural change?) factors.

2) What does seem fairly clear to me is that the Australian gun control experiment, like all other restrictive gun control measures of which I am aware, is a spectacular failure. At best, it has accomplished nothing - and all at a tremendous cost to the Australian taxpayers and a widespread denial of one of the most fundamental rights of Australian citizens - the right to self-defense. At worst, Australian citizens may literally paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the "privilege" of experiencing increased crime, including increased violent crime, in their society.

Sorry if that's not as strong as some might like, but as far as I'm concerned, it's strong enough. And I have this "thing" about truth.

One of the reasons why I'm not a Democrat.

[Servant of the 9]

Snopes normally makes a concise non preachy refutation of things.

When we see this wordy and squishy soft on the numbers fluff piece we know Snopes is preaching not reporting.

So9

[Luke Skyfreeper]

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

That would be a 71% increase, NOT a 171% increase as stated.

A 171% increase over 7 would be 7 x 2.71 = 18.97, or 19. Just as the author stated.

People who brand others idiots when they don't what the hell they're talking about, and the person they've branded an idiot is absolutely correct, are... well, I'll let you figure it out.

[Libertina]

LOL Nicely worded.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

People, just because you wish something to be so does NOT make it so, and it doesn't make someone who observes the truth either an idiot or a leftist.

Some of you are acting like liberals, taking the attitude "truth is what I want it to be."

You'll hardly find anyone on this board who, in any practical terms, is more pro-firearms than I am (search through past bang threads and especially the ccw ones if you don't believe me). But this isn't a leftist attack on gun rights. It's a lesson in how NOT to use statistics.

[NittanyLion]

You'll hardly find anyone on this board who, in any practical terms, is more pro-firearms than I am (search through past bang threads and especially the ccw ones if you don't believe me). But this isn't a leftist attack on gun rights. It's a lesson in how NOT to use statistics.

Right on. Had Snopes debunked Michael Bellesiles' misleading use of statistics using similar methods, folks on this site would be cheering them on. Conservatives can easily make the case that gun control is a mistake without resorting to using misleading statistics and then attacking those who [correctly] point out the problems inherent in said use.

[Zeppo]

Well said (um, written, actually)...

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Conservatives can easily make the case that gun control is a mistake without resorting to using misleading statistics and then attacking those who [correctly] point out the problems inherent in said use.

And this is one of the remarkable differences between liberals and conservatives. I sincerely believe that, had everything been exactly reversed (i.e., this was a liberal board and the piece debunked had to do with liberal claims about any issue) -- not only would NOBODY have appeared to say, "Actually, this critique is correct," even if they HAD, NOBODY else would have come along to say, "You're right."

In other words, I find little intellectual honesty among liberals.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

In other words, I find little intellectual honesty among liberals.

...that was probably an understatement. What I really mean is closer to "none."

[backhoe]

The Great Australian Gun Law CON!

HCI Aussie Style (read it and weep-or laugh)

Statistical Facts Gun-haters Run From

-Empty-Barrel Gun Policies-A legacy of nonsense from Clinton, Blair, and the Left--

[Indie]

Snopes is a leftist spin machine.

[robertpaulsen]

"... even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned."

So only certain groups ... and not all guns. And still, 640,381 firearms were surrendered.

[BlackRain]

Conservatives can easily make the case that gun control is a mistake without resorting to using misleading statistics and then attacking those who [correctly] point out the problems inherent in said use. What I find remarkable is the number of people posting here who actually accept false analysis by Snopes. I find it interesting the no one here commented on the fact that the link for in this passage does not exist. " Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program. How can you come to a conclusion about the Snopes article without facts to back them up? My proposed revised Snopes article: 1) The Australian Firearms Act 1996 banned all private ownership of machine and sub-machine guns; self-loading rim-fire rifles; self-loading centre-fire rifles; self-loading shotguns; and pump action shotguns. This required these firearms to surrendered to authorities. Those possessing a firearms licence may not own any of the banned items including pistols. This effectively limits ownership of most firearm types. 2) The rationale behind the law is nested in this 1994 factiod. It is clear from this analysis that, overwhelmingly, the problem of firearm deaths results from intentional acts of violence, most commonly self-inflicted. It is also clear that males, through their disproportionate involvement in such incidents, are the main group to be targeted by prevention programs. 3) Since the 1996, gun violence has increased despite it being illegal to own these prohibited firearms. Australia's Data from the national Recorded Crime Australia data collection : a) A person was more likely to be a victim of a crime where a firearm was used in 2001 than in 1995, with the exception of murder. A firearm was the predominant weapon type for kidnappings/abductions in 2001, and a person was four times more likely to be a victim of a kidnapping/abduction involving a firearm in 2001 than in 1995. However, since 1995 there was a greater increase in the likelihood of being confronted by a weapon other than a firearm for attempted murder (54% increase), assault (67% increase) and robbery (145% increase). b) The decrease in weapon use for murders has not been evident for attempted murders, with the victimisation rate based on use of weapon 58% higher in 2001 than 1995. The proportion of kidnappings/abductions where a weapon was used increased markedly in 1999-2001 compared with previous years. c) The assault victimisation rate increased by 44% from 563 to 810 per 100,000 population between 1995 and 2002 Gun grabbers would be bragging if this grand experiment was showing results in the time that has elapsed since in 1996. However, the Gun Law of 1996 has yielded few changes on crime stats in Australia.

[Oztrich Boy]

Sporting Shooters Association of Australian http://www.ssaa.org.au/ has a pretty good analysis of long term crime trend
Statisical graphs

I wouldn't go so far as to call snopes a "leftist spin machine". Their analysis is generally fairly good.
But on this case I think they lost sight of the target and went to defend the possiblity of the "figures presented here might be explained by something else" hypothesis.

Ans yes probably influnced by gunphobia, something that doesn't just afflict leftists. It can happen to anyone, even Australian PM Lord Howard of Kiribilli.

The stronger "urban legend" target was Ed Chenel himself.

While not as obvious a hoax as the "battling granny Ava Estelle" story, there is no recognisable Australian flavour to Ed Chenel.
Not to say that an Ozzie couldn't have written it if he was making an effort to address an non-Autralian audience, but it just feels a bit dodgy.
The most Australian idiom is a few words of Ozbureaucrat which probably came from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website.

And the only references to Ed Chenel and his letter on Australian websites refer back to the US source of the story.

So the uselessness of the Australian Gun Purge can be argued with solid evidence, but I wouldn't defend the Ed Chenel story.

[King Prout]

the analysis looks good, but misses a trick:
1. gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms.
2. total Aussie pop = @20 million people

that means that there was one confiscated weapon for every 25 people... irrespective of age.
more like 1 confiscated firearm for every 12 able-bodied adults.
that is just the proscribed, confiscated (and useful for home defense) firearms, not including bolt-action or breakdown models.
That indicates that firearm ownership USED to be fairly common in Oz, contrary to the insinuation of Snopes.com

[Valpal1]

Snopes fact checking accuracy is itself an urban myth.

[BigBobber]

Technically, you are correct. The original author stated there was an increase by 300 percent. What he meant was there was an increase by a factor of nearly 3, which is true.

The second author, adopting a holier-than-thou-additude about lying with statistics, choose instead to lie with semantics and then tried to diminish the actual increase in homocides from 7 to 19 to a more palatable sounding 171%.

However you put it, there was a significant increase in homicides after the gun grab. The second author's attempt to diminish the increase of 12 murders as statistically insignificant, while an even lower number was used to justify enacting the law, is left wing spin. To me, that brands the Snopes author as an idiot.

[Oztrich Boy]

That indicates that firearm ownership USED to be fairly common in Oz, contrary to the insinuation of Snopes.com

It all depends what the meaning of "is" is.

What you say is true, but snopes is also correct to say the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback.

But then as only 45% of US homes have firearms in them, you could also say the average US citizen doesn'r own firearms either.

The Gun "buyback", and more importantly the new "legitimate reason to own a firearm" criteria probably cut the "homes with a firearms cache" figure from 20 to 15%. Not US levels, but still high by world standards.

But "every journey begins with a single step", or "every boiled frog's temperature increase began with one degree" (choose your metaphor).

But it's not the number of guns, or even the criminal's perception if the likelhood of the victims being armed.

It goes into the culture. Although as snopes misdirects "Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms".
Self-defence was not a legal reason to own or use a gun. And "safe storage" requirements meant the firearm should not be available for defence in dire necessity.\

Yet home-invaders were killed by a statistically unbelievable number of owners who just happened to have the firearm out for cleaning. Australian Crown Prosecuters are not particularly gullible, but when the home-owner was charged, juries would not convict.

Which comes to the real reason for the "Whenever there's an incident, impose restrictions on the people who are not the problem" laws.

It's to change the culture.