US murder rate close to historic lows.

[CapnAwesome]

Except that this is my thread and it's a thread about the per capita murder rate. The gun deaths stat was brought it by you to derail my discussion. Also I asked earlier for an example where the per capita murder rate went down with gun bans and you brought in an article showing that gun deaths went down.

Also we don't live in a bubble where gun laws have never been enacted. I'll answer your question if you can answer this Do you know what happened to the murder rate in the UK when the UK enacted their gun laws?

Now you'll have me believe that this thread is specifically dedicated to per capita murder rates and has nothing at all to do with the mass shooting thread discussions from which it sprang. I now have my choice of turning your bubble analogy around on you or accuse you of attempting to take your ball and go home.

UK? Why are you ignoring the more appropriate example of Australia? Here's more. The actual study can be linked in the article:

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

Bolding mine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...australia/

The UK is a better example because they have stricter gun laws. They are also the example that seems to be compared to the US the most in other threads. (They are also the country who's gun laws I've studied the most, so the one I'm most likely to use)
.
At least it's a relevant stat and I'm glad that this thread has caused you to look into it so we are getting somewhere, and can have a civil discussion because we are actually talking about the topic at hand. This topic sprang from those threads because I think the overall homicide rate is far more relevant and wanted to discuss it. I also like pointing out that the world is getting better, not worse as so many would have you believe. I'd much rather live in a society with a low murder rate than one with a low gun deaths rate but high murder rate. So would any sane person.

I would note that in that time the US murder rate fell by a similar amount in that time, as you can see in the original chart of the murder rate in the US. Thus at least the author of that article admits that it is only circumstantial evidence. Unless we saw a similar drop with other enactments of gun laws, I'd suspect that the Australian murder rate went down the same reason the US, UK, and many other countries have seen a drop in their murder rates: an aging populace. Young men commit the vast majorities of murders.

Now why is Australia a more appropriate example than the UK?

(Note, I have to go so I might be slow on my next reply)

[CapnAwesome]

Except that this is my thread and it's a thread about the per capita murder rate. The gun deaths stat was brought it by you to derail my discussion. Also I asked earlier for an example where the per capita murder rate went down with gun bans and you brought in an article showing that gun deaths went down.

Also we don't live in a bubble where gun laws have never been enacted. I'll answer your question if you can answer this Do you know what happened to the murder rate in the UK when the UK enacted their gun laws?

Now you'll have me believe that this thread is specifically dedicated to per capita murder rates and has nothing at all to do with the mass shooting thread discussions from which it sprang. I now have my choice of turning your bubble analogy around on you or accuse you of attempting to take your ball and go home.

UK? Why are you ignoring the more appropriate example of Australia? Here's more. The actual study can be linked in the article:

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

Bolding mine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...australia/

So a little cursory research and the with a parallel increase is misleading language. There was an increase in non-firearm homicides, it's just that it didn't make up the entire difference. More important to note while the murder rate was falling in Australia, it was falling more in the United States. The US has seen one of the most dramatic drops in the murder rate in the first world (of course it's still way too high, but again, these countries have always had lower murder rates than the US, even when they had the same gun laws.) Facts like this are always avoided though, when good ole arguments from emotion can rule.  

If it's all about the guns, why is murder decreasing more in the US than in Australia? These of course, are questions that never get answered on here because they are difficult and it's easy to just repeat the same ole 'gun deaths' stat that's totally misleading. Also the question about the UK's murder rate going up after their gun laws were implemented is still an open question to be answered. I doubt that anybody ever will even try to take it on, on these forums. I've probably posed it on every thread about gun laws, so I know that everyone has seen and avoided it.

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/should-the...-gun-laws/