Australian native Julie posted this link in a comment over at Robb Allen's. The article is all about how Australia "got it right" and is safer now because they banned guns. They cite some "study" in the American Journal of Medicine. This "study" conveniently looks at only "gun death" or "gun crime" as every anti-gunner ever tends to do. Why? Their goal is to ban guns, so a woman beaten to death with a lamp in her own home is not important, nor is an old man beaten with a hammer, or a jogger beaten to death by a larger man's fists.
Statistics don't matter to my rights, but they are useful in pointing out where the anti's get it wrong.
To quote the article,
"It found the gun rate per population was "a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country" and those with the lowest rates, including Australia, were safest."
Ah yes, so they only looked at "gun ownership rates" and "gun death rates" so that they could put out dishonest propaganda. Just like very anti-gunner ever.
Now, here's what the Australian Institute of Criminology found
"Gun-related homicide dropped to a historic low of 13 per cent but the frequency of people dying from stab wounds jumped from 30 per cent to 41 per cent over the previous decade."
Hmmm, this is the same thing we've seen here in the U.S. The killings still occur, the weapon of choice just changes. It happened in New York. Gun homicides fell, but knife homicides rose and the overall homicide rate actually increased. People were objectively more likely to be murdered despite falling gun death rates.
As the Sydney Morning Herald article reported
"Stab wounds were the most commonly recorded cause of death at 38 per cent, followed by beatings at 25 per cent with gunshot wounds accounting for 13 per cent."
You mean to tell me the two leading methods of recorded homicides were stabbing and beating deaths? But I thought if they banned guns it'd be a violence free utopia? Certainly not for those beaten and stabbed to death who couldn't shoot their attacker. Oh, but I forgot, to an anti-gunner someone beaten to death (hello George Zimmerman) is morally superior to someone shot to death.
"Double or single barrelled shotguns were the most commonly used firearm.
Quick! Someone tell Joe Biden. If you don't think the anti's would come for your old shotgun after they've banned other guns, just look at this report and think how they'd use it to say we needed to get these "dangerous military shotguns" off our streets.
''Since the [study] began in 1989-90, homicides resulting from the use of a firearm have decreased,'' the study found. ''Conversely the proportion of homicides involving knives has increased.''
So, take a relatively safe, homogenous, island nation with little homicide, ban all the guns and take them away from millions of people who did nothing wrong, and yes, bad guys "might" not use guns as often to kill, but they'll still kill, some will still kill with guns, and all their victims are now defenseless. Sounds wonderful eh?
And here's a link to the actual government findings
Remember that after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre Australia instituted a sweeping gun ban and confiscated millions of guns from millions of law-abiding Australian gun owners. If you look at the graph of homicide by firearm from 1915 to 2003. You'll see that the gun homicide rate in 2003 was roughly the same as it was at times during the 1920's, 1940's and 1950's.
The numbers also point out another truth. Australia didn't have much of a gun homicide problem before they banned guns.