The catch-all gun thread

[TheBeardedDude]

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.

---

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.

---

(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?