As any student of statistical analysis will tell you, Steelredux, the smaller the sample, the less accurate the conclusions. Your premise, is that because some types of violent crime has declined in the past ten years, then Australia must be becoming a safer society. And by inference, the gun buyback worked.

Sorry, that is wrong for many reasons. If the gun buyback worked, why is it necessary for NSW to AGAIN make it's gun laws more onerous? They did not do it because NSW was safer, it was because despite the gun buyback, crimes involving firearms were getting worse and the public was demanding that the government do something.

The statistics in "Rising Crime in Australia" covered a period of almost a hundred years, not ten. It clearly showed, that for most of this century, Australia once had very lenient gun laws and very little violent crime. From 13 rapes and attempted rapes in 1923 to 40,000 today, and you claim that Australian society is getting less violent because we topped at 53,000 p.a. rapes before things improved?

The figures for homicides have decreased for the three reasons I have already given. And I will add a fourth. More people are being shot and stabbed today, but more people are recovering because of the increasing familiarity of emergency room personnel in dealing with these types of injuries. Crime is at levels undreamed of in our grandparents time, but you think that nothing is wrong because some types of violent crime hit the roof and bounced? Our jails are full and getting fuller. So many NSW prisoners are now on remand that special laws allowing bail for even serious offences like murder have been instituted to alleviate the overcrowding.

Dear LEGO,

With the greatest respect you were the one tying gun laws with violent crime not I and this was the quote you offered in support;

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less than when there were no controls of any sort. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime, than ever before."

All I am contending is that violent crime or even crime in general is on the whole declining.

Here are figures for the rate of criminal incidents recorded by NSW Police per 100,000 population by year and offence type

Murder – peaked in 1999 at 2.0 now 1.1

Assault - peaked in 2002 at 1068.4 now 887.8

Robbery without a weapon - peaked in 2001 at 115.6 now 33.5

Robbery with a firearm - peaked in 1997 at 22.3 now 4.5

Robbery with a weapon not a firearm - peaked in 1998 at 80.3 now 19.2

Breaking and entering a dwelling - peaked in 1998 at 1340.4 now 482.6

You may well look at the figures and still conclude that, despite what they show, in your opinion society is getting more violent. That is perfectly acceptable. It may not be supported by the evidence but after all it is an opinion. What I don't think is as acceptable is finding an excuse to dismiss each statistic for a myriad of different reasons and try and tell me that white is black.

In the end I think we have agreed more than we have disagreed perhaps with different take away messages which is fine. Howard's gun laws did what they were designed to do. Can the result be tortured by either side to further their agendas? Of course. But I for one would not want to see them repealed or diminished in any fashion.

I have appreciated the reasoned exploration of the issue.

I will leave you with some light relief.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/06/19/16/36/pastafarian-guy-albon-wears-colander-in-gun-licence-photo

SteeleRedux,

You have shown no familiarity at all, not even a superficial understanding of firearms regulations let alone being able to compare and contrast conditions pre- and post-Howard.

You are clueless about cause and effect and simply broken record the same stupefyingly irrelevant bumpf you got from somewhere. Then you have the gall, and the front of a Sydney double decker bus, to turn around and declare your case proven! How?

What is it? Do you actually believe that stuff? Do you hope to bluff it out because few can be bothered setting the record straight if they have to descend to your level?

This is what is wrong with internet forums and social sites, where the ill-informed and narcissists pose as 'experts', and few ordinary, sensible, knowledgeable, law-abiding, self-disciplined citizens would waste their time posting.

The problem is that a lie often repeated might be believed as fact.

However Howard's gun control is easily and convincingly shown to be a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork and redundancy that inconveniences police, putting them behind desks and wasting their time monitoring respectable citizens, and sledges and even wars against the law-abiding safe citizens who get licences. Way to win over the known good citizens? Absolutely not!

Now, what about you invoke your very best Otto impersonation (A Fish Called Wanda) and try to answer the very simple questions that you are trying to ignore? Here you go and open to all comers of course:

(1) Please detail exactly how the Howard 'gun control' actually affects wrong doers? Practically, specifically, what is there that could stop a Bryant or the drug traffickers who are responsible for almost all gun crime? Because no-one else can find anything in it.

(2) Please advise how the Howard bureaucratic paraphernalia will deter and stop Jihardists returning from the Middle East from obtaining the guns and other weapons to continue their foul violence in Australia, to take a topical example.

Some of those posting here obviously haven't done some checking suggested in an earlier post I made. Try Googling eg "Port Arthur Massacre Coverup" and study material that comes up. Those who have realise that the massacre was planned by anti gun psychopaths to drum up public support for tough gun laws. Also that MARTIN BRYANT WAS NOT THE GUNMAN. He was selected and set up to take the blame. Was sentenced after initial "trial by media" which amounted to contempt of court and eventually was persuaded to plead guilty after being held in illegal solitary confinement - obviously under considerable duress for six months. Any attempt to convict him against a proper defence would obviously have been thrown out of court because of lack of evidence proving he was the gunman and a lot indicating it was someone else.

Hopefully as the official story is exposed as false in important respects, Martin Bryant will be granted a proper trial and a genuine enquiry will be held into the whole affair. Remember how John Howard has claimed his greatest achievement was getting his gun laws through. I am sure most who disapprove of them would appreciate if proper processes of the law could be applied against him. Seems to me that Mr Howard should be charged with being an accessory after the fact regarding Port Arthur murders and perverting the course of justice by his actions to cover up the truth.

Hi Steelredux.

Apologies for the tardy response but I have been working 56 hour weeks and sometimes I am just too tired to indulge my favourite pastime.

The quote that you submitted was not mine, it was from Chief Inspector, Colin Greenwood commenting upon how serious gun crime involving handguns in Britain had increased significantly since the private ownership of handguns in Britain was banned.

Visiting the AIC, the figures I obtained did not entirely validate the figures that you submitted that indicated a general decline in crime in all categories.

Homicides have decreased, for reasons that I have already explained, which hardly constitute Australia "becoming safer." Sadly, the AIC did not have any figures on "shoot with intent" to discover if more people were being shot (or shot at) than ever before.

Assaults increased from 114,156 (1996) to 171,083 (2010)

Sexual assaults increased from 14,542 (1996) to 17,797 (2010)

Kidnapping increased from 478 (1996) to 603 (2010)

Robberies have declined 16,732 (1996) to (14,582.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/161-180/cfi177.html

Attempted murder with a knife increased from 33 (2001) to 36.9 (2009)

Here is the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2008 stating that assaults and sexual assaults have increased 40% and homicides had decreased by only 9%. A 9% reduction in the homicide rate can be considered a normal fluctuation, in the same way that the 35 people shot dead by Martin Bryant at Port Arthur increased the homicide rate on that particular year. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html

Australians are not usually statisticians or mathematicians. But anyone with a high school education can understand that any statistic can be greatly distorted if only a small sample is used to make assumptions about any subject. You are claiming that Australia is a safer place based upon figures, (some of which are disputed by me) which cover only a (roughly) ten year period to the present day. My figures are more accurate because they cover almost a hundred years of ever steepening crime statistics which clearly indicate that whatever reductions in our historically high levels of crime have recently occurred, the general trend is still an upward curve

continued

Periodic fluctuations in the homicide rate are the norm, not the exception. You have to examine the figures over a long time to average them out and arrive at a general rate. According to all the data I have read when reading about Australia's homicide rate, the figure 1.8 per 100,000 seems to be the one most commonly quoted. And it has that figure has remained steady for most of the century, for reasons I have already explained. The homicide rate fell, along with every other violent crime rate, during the war years, and rose when the war was over. That did not mean that Australian society had somehow become intrinsically less violent, and then became intrinsically more violent. It was because of a specific and easily understood reason. Most violent crime is committed by young men, and most young men were at the front or subject to military regulation.

That is why when assessing statistics, the figures should be drawn from as large a base sample as possible, and where anomalies can be identified and the reasons for them assessed. Taking a small sample and making inferences based upon a narrow band of facts is statistically insignificant.