Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Snopes "debunks" Australian Gun Statistics (Freeper discussion/rebuttal desired)
Snopes.com ^ | 28 January 2004 | Barbara and David P. Mikkelson

Posted on 02/22/2004 12:41:46 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast

Edited on 02/24/2004 8:51:17 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]

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.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; bang; banglist; rtkba; snopes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
Freeper comments? It would be nice to rebut the rebuttal, if possible.
1 posted on 02/22/2004 12:41:46 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
bump
2 posted on 02/22/2004 12:44:48 PM PST by lowbridge (I can think of a punishment worse than death for Saddam, but Hillary is already married.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HangFire; AnnaZ
bump
3 posted on 02/22/2004 12:45:26 PM PST by lowbridge (I can think of a punishment worse than death for Saddam, but Hillary is already married.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
I've just got one question - how can you shoot tyrants if you don't have a gun?
4 posted on 02/22/2004 12:48:48 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
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.
5 posted on 02/22/2004 12:49:04 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
Online Rumor Mill Spins Its Own Myth(Snopes.com's leftwing bias undercuts its credibility)
6 posted on 02/22/2004 12:53:18 PM PST by lowbridge (I can think of a punishment worse than death for Saddam, but Hillary is already married.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
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.
7 posted on 02/22/2004 12:53:55 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Three kinds of lies:

Lies

Damned Lies

Statistics

8 posted on 02/22/2004 12:54:42 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
I reached the same conclusion before I saw you post.
9 posted on 02/22/2004 12:55:25 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Probably the woman on the site that wrote this. Snopes is pretty awesome, but they sure lean left a lot.
10 posted on 02/22/2004 12:56:13 PM PST by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
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.

11 posted on 02/22/2004 1:08:35 PM PST by Old Sarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
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?

12 posted on 02/22/2004 1:09:49 PM PST by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
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.
13 posted on 02/22/2004 1:10:19 PM PST by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
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.
14 posted on 02/22/2004 1:12:03 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list

BANG!


15 posted on 02/22/2004 1:12:09 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
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.

16 posted on 02/22/2004 1:12:10 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
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.
17 posted on 02/22/2004 1:13:28 PM PST by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
>>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.
18 posted on 02/22/2004 1:14:06 PM PST by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
his own numbers show a 21 percent increase in three years. he says that's no dramatic. i saw he's goofy.
19 posted on 02/22/2004 1:14:13 PM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
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.

20 posted on 02/22/2004 1:14:20 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson