Something does not make sense there...If you look at Aussie stats intentional deaths (0.9 per 100,000) and Firearms deaths (0.88 per 100,000) thatis 9 per million and 8.8 per million. So of the intentional deaths 2 per million do not involve firearms? Then look at NZ (2.6 versus 1.24 ) so less than half of our intentional deaths involve firearms. AND the ratio of firearms deaths to ownership is lower in NZ (Aussie is 1 in 16.47 and NZ is 1 in 21.24)
One big question though is does the total deaths by firearm include accidental deaths as it does not specify intentional in the title on that column. I think it would be misleading to add accidental ones in when attempting to compare firearms deaths in relation to murder. For example it could be said that NZ had 2.6 intentional deaths per 100,000 people of which none were committed with firearms and an accidental or self iflicted of 1.24 per 100,000 people which would clearly indicate that laws against crime were working rather than implying the opposite. This situation would tell us we have a problem with safety, education and mental health but would also show crime is being addressed effectively -( Clearly this is not the case but it is something that is possible with those stats..)
As mentioned stats can be twisted to show things that are not true especially if there is something to gain. And lets face it UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) clearly has its own poliical agenda to disarm the general population as a mandate so would never publish information showing it to be wrong...
As for my comparison with Australia, the main point is that with their draconian level anti firearm laws and it being near impossible to get a license there, then there should be almost no gun crime there at all if the laws worked....clearly that is not the case as their Police are armed at all times.....
Bookmarks