Re: "Gun buyback scheme halves firearm deaths"

¿mÿ§t뮦@n? wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

¿mÿ§t뮦@n? wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

¿mÿ§t뮦@n? wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Gun buyback scheme halves firearm deaths

14/12/2006 - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News (c) 2006

New research reveals the risk of being shot dead in Australia has
dropped dramatically since the gun buyback scheme was introduced a
decade ago.

Homicide trends in Australia have been virtually unchanged since 1989

Pity you didn't do a more in depth investigation.

I did. I went back to 1989. You cherry-picked your data only back to

That you "went back to 1989" is a bit of poetic licence. You looked up
a graph that gave no actual data, then determined it looked flat to

Um, Phil? It looks flat to everyone. You see, I don't have to make my
own graph, because the government of Australia thoughtfully provided
me with one.

The graph you are relying on is for "incidents", but you are aguing
that the "rate" is flat. Spot the difference?

and promptly pronounced that "data provided by the Australian
government," proved the "the rate is relatively flat". Predicatably my
provision of ACTUAL DATA left you unmoved. No surprises there, it
destroyed your claim.The rate is NOT flat as the numbers prove.

Yet you asked me to graph the numbers to show a slight decline. So
obviously, a graphic representation is important to you. I decline to
graph the numbers you provide because (a) your government has already
done so for me and (b) their graph provides pictorial representation
of data from a much longer period of time. It is, therefore, more
significant and meaningful.

Oh yeah, and (c) is doesn't show any decline in murder rates due to
your gun confiscation, either. Fancy that.

As pointed out above the graph you're relying on DOES NOT plot the
"rate", therefore it cannot show the rate. I gave you the rates and
told you how to graph it and produce a trend line. Now I understand
you'd be reluctant to do that because it proves my point. Simply
screaming that a graph with "incidents" proves no rate fall doesn't do
much for your credibility.

As pointed out above the "Australian government" does not prove the
rate isn't flat, only your viewing of the graph convinces you it's

If you were going to be truthful, you would quote me correctly. I said

:Homicide trends in Australia have been virtually unchanged since 1989

The graph shows this to be true.

I DID quote you correctly. You stated, verbatim, unabridged, "As I
demonstrated with data provided by the Australian government, the rate
is relatively flat." Now anyone with a modicum of mathematical nouse
could tell you that to get a "rate" you need 2 things, a numerator and
a denominator. But all you're basing your claims on is the numerator.
Is there any chance you will see the error of your ways or will you
continue to claim that a graph showing "incidents" somehow can be
manipulated (breaking all statistical rules) into showing a rate?

At least I can now advise your boss how to reduce your pay without you
complaining. He only needs to show you a graph that appears relatively
flat, while meanwhile dropping your salary 25% over 10 years.

I think everyone knows Australia has a low murder rate. It's ALWAYS
been low. If you have two murders a year, for example, and the next
year you have 1 murder, that's a 50% reduction. But the numbers are so
small as to be statistically unusable and meaningless.

So, let's move away from your statistical shell game and go back to
the graph. Because I'm looking at the graph, Phil, and I'm not seeing
the great big impact your gun confiscation program had on your murder

And neither are you. That's why you hate your government's graph. It
proves you're full of shit when you claim you've actually accomplished
anything with your gun confiscation.

Nice try, but I'm more than happy with my government's graph. It shows
NO increase in homicide incidents, yet the population has increased by
20% over that period, hence a RATE decline, something that eludes you.

And there has been something accomplished with the 1996 gun laws. And
guess what, it was EXACTLY what was hoped to be accomplished and was
stated as such at the time. Since 1996 there have been NO firearm mass
murders and THAT was the stated reason for the implementation of those
laws. Of course that won't stop people like ozarkheart trying to link
crimes that rarely if ever involve guns (either offensively or
defensively) ie assault, death by driving while ignoring progress in
crimes that do involve guns ie murder, armed robbery. But you'd expect