Let me put it this way.

population of Australia (a lowball number) in 1996 was around 18,071,000. Based on the graph, the reported number of sexual assaults was around 1,100. That gives a rate (per 100,000 people) of 6.1

2008 the population is 21,000,000. The average is now up to an average of 1600. That rate is 7.1.

These are very quick and dirty averages since 7.1 will be a high estimate for closer to 2008 because the population continued to grow.

If there we an increase in the rate, it appears that it would be coincidental with a trend that appears to have begun in 2000. But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 10:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Let me put it this way.

population of Australia (a lowball number) in 1996 was around 18,071,000. Based on the graph, the reported number of sexual assaults was around 1,100. That gives a rate (per 100,000 people) of 61

2008 the population is 21,000,000. The average is now up to an average of 1600. That rate is 71.

These are very quick and dirty averages since 7.1 will be a high estimate for closer to 2008 because the population continued to grow.

If there we an increase in the rate, it appears that it would be coincidental with a trend that appears to have begun in 2000. But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 9:59 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: (94-78)/78 = 20.5%

A 20 percent increase, to 94 per 100,000.
Sure, I'm willing to be that the increase we're seeing in that graph isn't entirely down to population growth.

Easy? Please do.

The population change was 16.3% over the same time frame.

So, a reflection of population growth would make more sense?

---

But I must ask, let's assume it is significant and a real increase. Is there a point you are trying to make?

We already have the per 100,000 rates for '97 and '07: 7.8 and 9.4, why try to estimate them for one year earlier and later?

Quote: But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

If it's so easy as your asserted in a pervious post, please do so and settle the argument rather than making estimates that get us nowhere. Till then I'm going to assume a 20% increase in the per 100,000 rate, given the huge sample size (95% of australians apparently according to http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html) is in fact statistically significant.

Quote: The population change was 16.3% over the same time frame.

So, a reflection of population growth would make more sense?

Not when it's per 100,000 no.

The point was, you were all gung-ho about a slightly lower murder rate even with a skyrocketing assault rate. Are you as enthusiastic, when we assume that the sexual assault rate increase is real and significant?

(November 30, 2013 at 9:53 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: For personal reasons I refuse to photograph my firearms. I have provided this link for anyone who cares to see a website photo of my newest revolver. Enjoy.

I prefer the GP-100, it fits my smaller hand better.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 10:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Let me put it this way.

population of Australia (a lowball number) in 1996 was around 18,071,000. Based on the graph, the reported number of sexual assaults was around 1,100. That gives a rate (per 100,000 people) of 6.1

2008 the population is 21,000,000. The average is now up to an average of 1600. That rate is 7.1.

These are very quick and dirty averages since 7.1 will be a high estimate for closer to 2008 because the population continued to grow.

If there we an increase in the rate, it appears that it would be coincidental with a trend that appears to have begun in 2000. But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 10:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Let me put it this way.

population of Australia (a lowball number) in 1996 was around 18,071,000. Based on the graph, the reported number of sexual assaults was around 1,100. That gives a rate (per 100,000 people) of 61

2008 the population is 21,000,000. The average is now up to an average of 1600. That rate is 71.

These are very quick and dirty averages since 7.1 will be a high estimate for closer to 2008 because the population continued to grow.

If there we an increase in the rate, it appears that it would be coincidental with a trend that appears to have begun in 2000. But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 9:59 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: (94-78)/78 = 20.5%

A 20 percent increase, to 94 per 100,000.
Sure, I'm willing to be that the increase we're seeing in that graph isn't entirely down to population growth.

Easy? Please do.

The population change was 16.3% over the same time frame.

So, a reflection of population growth would make more sense?

---

But I must ask, let's assume it is significant and a real increase. Is there a point you are trying to make?

Well, we can all agree that draconian gun control does not reduce crime.

(November 30, 2013 at 10:12 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: We already have the per 100,000 rates for '97 and '07: 7.8 and 9.4, why try to estimate them for one year earlier and later?

Quote: But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

If it's so easy as your asserted in a pervious post, please do so and settle the argument rather than making estimates that get us nowhere. Till then I'm going to assume a 20% increase in the per 100,000 rate, given the huge sample size (95% of australians apparently according to http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html) is in fact statistically significant.

I am sorry it is too difficult for you to get, if I get some time in the next few weeks to open excel and do it, I will make sure to show you how.

In any event, is there a point you feel you are making if the sexual assault rate for Australia has climbed since 2000?

---

(November 30, 2013 at 10:14 pm)Chas Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 9:53 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: For personal reasons I refuse to photograph my firearms. I have provided this link for anyone who cares to see a website photo of my newest revolver. Enjoy.

I prefer the GP-100, it fits my smaller hand better.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 10:04 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Let me put it this way.

population of Australia (a lowball number) in 1996 was around 18,071,000. Based on the graph, the reported number of sexual assaults was around 1,100. That gives a rate (per 100,000 people) of 6.1

2008 the population is 21,000,000. The average is now up to an average of 1600. That rate is 7.1.

These are very quick and dirty averages since 7.1 will be a high estimate for closer to 2008 because the population continued to grow.

If there we an increase in the rate, it appears that it would be coincidental with a trend that appears to have begun in 2000. But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

---

---

The population change was 16.3% over the same time frame.

So, a reflection of population growth would make more sense?

---

But I must ask, let's assume it is significant and a real increase. Is there a point you are trying to make?

Well, we can all agree that draconian gun control does not reduce crime.

I never tried to argue it reduced crime or crime rates, as you point out correctly. So I still don't get the point of the penguin.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 10:12 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: We already have the per 100,000 rates for '97 and '07: 7.8 and 9.4, why try to estimate them for one year earlier and later?

Quote: But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.

If it's so easy as your asserted in a pervious post, please do so and settle the argument rather than making estimates that get us nowhere. Till then I'm going to assume a 20% increase in the per 100,000 rate, given the huge sample size (95% of australians apparently according to http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html) is in fact statistically significant.

You can assume all you like, but you haven't actually shown that it is relevant or significant. If you generate a random walk, you could take any given part of that segment and see directionality, even if none actually exists. If your claim is that there is an increase, prove it.

---

But, I will ask again. Let's assume it is real (an increase that is similar to that of the population increase). What is your point? Are you trying to say that Australia's gun laws are a cause?

You're the one who granted assuming it:

Quote: But I must ask, let's assume it is significant and a real increase...

Yet when I do so, I get this:

Quote: You can assume all you like, but you haven't actually shown that it is relevant or significant. If you generate a random walk, you could take any given part of that segment and see directionality, even if none actually exists. If your claim is that there is an increase, prove it.

Seems like shenanigans to me.

We don't have the variance so I'm not sure how you would calculate it, but you're the one who first stated it would be easy to calculate, I called you one it first, so no you do it.

To the same degree you were trying to say that the lower homicide rate (but increased assault rate) was a result of the gun laws sure, something about having your cake...

Quote: I would not mind living in a society where violent crime resulted in injury instead of death. Especially if we could curb the mass shootings.

(November 30, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: You're the one who granted assuming it:

Quote: But I must ask, let's assume it is significant and a real increase...

Yet when I do so, I get this:

Quote: You can assume all you like, but you haven't actually shown that it is relevant or significant. If you generate a random walk, you could take any given part of that segment and see directionality, even if none actually exists. If your claim is that there is an increase, prove it.

Seems like shenanigans to me.

We don't have the variance so I'm not sure how you would calculate it, but you're the one who first stated it would be easy to calculate, I called you one it first, so no you do it.

To the same degree you were trying to say that the lower homicide rate (but increased assault rate) was a result of the gun laws sure, something about having your cake...

Quote: I would not mind living in a society where violent crime resulted in injury instead of death. Especially if we could curb the mass shootings.

Are you going to tell me what the increase in sexual assault and the increase in assaults has to do with the gun laws in Australia?

0 mass shootings since 1996.

An increase in sexual assault rates since 2000

An increase in assault rates since 1996.

Please tell me how these are logically and causally connected to the changing gun laws.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 10:40 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: You're the one who granted assuming it:

Yet when I do so, I get this:

Seems like shenanigans to me.

We don't have the variance so I'm not sure how you would calculate it, but you're the one who first stated it would be easy to calculate, I called you one it first, so no you do it.

To the same degree you were trying to say that the lower homicide rate (but increased assault rate) was a result of the gun laws sure, something about having your cake...

Are you going to tell me what the increase in sexual assault and the increase in assaults has to do with the gun laws in Australia?

0 mass shootings since 1996.

An increase in sexual assault rates since 2000

An increase in assault rates since 1996.

Please tell me how these are logically and causally connected to the changing gun laws.

And show me where I said Australia had not seen an increase. (I still said global, as in global average)

As I have already said, in regards to having your cake and eating it too:

Quote: In any event, while the violent crime rate (aka, assaults) is up, deaths and deaths by firearm are down. I would not mind living in a society where violent crime resulted in injury instead of death. Especially if we could curb the mass shootings.

You can't imply the deaths going down (including mass shootings) is due to the firearm laws, cede that violent crime is going up, but then when I add that violent crime includes both assaults and sexual assaults, have a go at me for relevance to the gun laws. Well you can, but i'll have none of it.

(November 30, 2013 at 10:55 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: As I have already said, in regards to having your cake and eating it too:

Quote: In any event, while the violent crime rate (aka, assaults) is up, deaths and deaths by firearm are down. I would not mind living in a society where violent crime resulted in injury instead of death. Especially if we could curb the mass shootings.

You can't imply the deaths going down (including mass shootings) is due to the firearm laws, cede that violent assaults going up, but then when I add that violent crime includes both assaults and sexual assaults, have a go at me for relevance to the gun laws. Well you can, but i'll have none of it.

I didn't say the decreases in deaths were due to the gun laws. I did not demonstrate a causal connection for deaths overall, death by gun, or suicide, or even suicide by gun. The coincidental drop is a welcomed one (even if not in the country I live in), and one I would like to see mirrored in the US. Gun laws may not be the only contributor. Healthcare and especially mental healthcare, plus a stable economy with low unemployment, won't hurt either. But I believe gun laws can fundamentally help. They don't appear to hurt anywhere I have ever looked.

I appreciate firearms for their defensive capabilities, but also, I would like to own a couple guns to go shooting from time to time. It's an acquired skill like any other, archery, knitting, quilting, or cooking. I would not relinquish any quilter of her needle or knitter of her darning needle just because those things could be conceived as weapons in a modern society. Nor would I take spikes from a mountain climber simply because they could penetrate vital organs of passers by.

An item only becomes a weapon if you choose it to be so. I will use anything as a weapon if necessary. Guns? Don't worry, I don't own 'em. But I do have some little bats, knives, scissors, and a myriad of heavy, hurtful objects that will become prime weapons.
So don't push me.

(November 30, 2013 at 10:59 pm)Owlix Wrote: I appreciate firearms for their defensive capabilities, but also, I would like to own a couple guns to go shooting from time to time. It's an acquired skill like any other, archery, knitting, quilting, or cooking. I would not relinquish any quilter of her needle or knitter of her darning needle just because those things could be conceived as weapons in a modern society. Nor would I take spikes from a mountain climber simply because they could penetrate vital organs of passers by.

An item only becomes a weapon if you choose it to be so. I will use anything as a weapon if necessary. Guns? Don't worry, I don't own 'em. But I do have some little bats, knives, scissors, and a myriad of heavy, hurtful objects that will become prime weapons.
So don't push me.

It is true that something can only kill if operated to do so (or handled incorrectly by someone who is not adequately trained). But guns (unlike the sewing needles but like some of the bladed weapons you mention) are designed to kill. It would seem only reasonable that if we require car owners to demonstrate proficiency with an automobile before they can use it in a way that impacts the public, and if we require insurance for that too, then why not require those who buy guns with intent to use them for whatever purpose (self-defense, hunting, stress relief at a firing range, etc), be required to have training (regardless of gun type, or private vs public carry/use), a license, and insurance?