As I said in my last post on this subject you should actually read the
data in the rates per 100,000 population table before you make the
claims that you do. What you've claimed in not supportable by the data
you've presented.
Chuck Norcutt
Nick Wilson wrote:
> Well to labour a point, but in the interest of truthfulness here are
> more updated ABS stats. And they confirm the sheer wrongness of
> believing that a violent crime wave has followed banning automatic
> weapons, carrying of knives etc. As if they would...it is a cultural
> thing as much having access to weapons.
>
> Not many people would even think to carry them or have them at home
> before. Martin Bryant was an isolated twisted case, but one who had
> access to brutal weapons. He could not have walked into the Port Arthur
> Cafe, picked up a bread knife and did what he did.
>
> Rates of violent crime are going down. Murder rates are going down and
> being tracked down with the declining use of firearms.
>
> We get the argument that 'if guns are criminal, only criminals have
> guns' occasionally, but the stats don't support it at all. There has
> been a rare flurry of drive-by shootings (probably an idea imported
> across the Pacific) and the rare flurry of gangland shootings, but no
> outbreak of anything.
>
> www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/62D241BAF189D79ACA2570DE0011B047?opendocument
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|