The catch-all gun thread

[TheBeardedDude]

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?

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

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?