Let me re-iterate.
I am not claiming the gun ban can be directly linked to any set of figures.
I am simply refuting some other claims made in your posts.
1. I think the most important point is that 2002 is years after the ban and that they were experiencing higher gun crimes than in the year of the ban or of the incident that led to the ban. Thus you have to question how effective the ban is at reducing crime.
I pointed out that the number of deaths had halved during that time period, which was actually the point of the ban. Gun crime (which includes the use of replicas and airguns) rose, but this was accounted for by the latter two categories.
2. So violent crimes, gun crimes, and murders being up while gun deaths being down is a success for the gun ban? I am not sure that being killed by a different method is any better than being killed by a gun. If the number of gun crimes are up, then it seems the number of illegal guns must be skyrocketing.
I showed that violent crimes were down, murders were down (check the graph again, knock off 54 for the July bombings, figures will be similar or lower than the '96 level for example, definitely lower than the 94/95 levels), and gun crimes were up because of increased use of air and replica weapons.
Moving on:
Even the OP questions the veracity of those stats.
I'll have to dig around some more. But it's almost irrelevant. Replica and air weapons show rises in use which account for most of the rise in gun crime.
So many factors have changed over 30 years it is impossible to take this as a simple linear time frame where an event "should happen" at a certain frequency. It is similaryl impossible to directly attribute decreases in murders and gun deaths solely to the gun ban. I've never argued otherwise.
As far as I remember both were carried out by the registered owners. I haven't time to dig out a source to corroborate that so if anyone can clear that one up I'd be grateful.
The BCS generally shows higher incidences than the reported crime figures issued by the police as some people don't bother reporting incidents. As mentioned above, even the OP questions the figures shown in that source from 7/8; I can find nothing from police, govt or any other source that goes anywhere near that.
Dealt with above. Remove terrorist attacks and the figures are lower.
What do you want?
The figures aren't mixed they're clear.
Gun deaths are down.
Murders are down.
Violent crime is down.
The only figure to show any increase is "gun crime", primarily because it also includes replica and air weapon use.
Mitch
I am not claiming the gun ban can be directly linked to any set of figures.
I am simply refuting some other claims made in your posts.
1. I think the most important point is that 2002 is years after the ban and that they were experiencing higher gun crimes than in the year of the ban or of the incident that led to the ban. Thus you have to question how effective the ban is at reducing crime.
I pointed out that the number of deaths had halved during that time period, which was actually the point of the ban. Gun crime (which includes the use of replicas and airguns) rose, but this was accounted for by the latter two categories.
2. So violent crimes, gun crimes, and murders being up while gun deaths being down is a success for the gun ban? I am not sure that being killed by a different method is any better than being killed by a gun. If the number of gun crimes are up, then it seems the number of illegal guns must be skyrocketing.
I showed that violent crimes were down, murders were down (check the graph again, knock off 54 for the July bombings, figures will be similar or lower than the '96 level for example, definitely lower than the 94/95 levels), and gun crimes were up because of increased use of air and replica weapons.
Moving on:
Even the OP questions the veracity of those stats.
I'll have to dig around some more. But it's almost irrelevant. Replica and air weapons show rises in use which account for most of the rise in gun crime.
So many factors have changed over 30 years it is impossible to take this as a simple linear time frame where an event "should happen" at a certain frequency. It is similaryl impossible to directly attribute decreases in murders and gun deaths solely to the gun ban. I've never argued otherwise.
As far as I remember both were carried out by the registered owners. I haven't time to dig out a source to corroborate that so if anyone can clear that one up I'd be grateful.
The BCS generally shows higher incidences than the reported crime figures issued by the police as some people don't bother reporting incidents. As mentioned above, even the OP questions the figures shown in that source from 7/8; I can find nothing from police, govt or any other source that goes anywhere near that.
Dealt with above. Remove terrorist attacks and the figures are lower.
What do you want?
The figures aren't mixed they're clear.
Gun deaths are down.
Murders are down.
Violent crime is down.
The only figure to show any increase is "gun crime", primarily because it also includes replica and air weapon use.
Mitch