[quote=ucodegen]“In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.”So we get a reduction of approx 30% in one category, 9% in another (which may statistically overlap with the first – if the armed robbery resulted in a homicide).. and a 40% increase in another category (assault) which has the sub-category sexual assault increasing by 20%? That does not look like good statistics to support gun control or a gun ban. Considering the reduction in armed robbery, I would suspect that it had nothing to do with gun control. It could be better police work, money obtained during a robbery not justifying the risk and finally… more prevalent use of credit cards meaning that establishments carry less cash. Be careful of taking statistics out of the context of the environment in which they were generated.[/quote]

I think you’re the one taking statistics out of context. Assault and sexual assault are not generally gun crimes. An increase in those crimes shows a general increase in the violence of a culture. As a culture gets more violent, you’d expect a commensurate increase in gun crimes. But, in this case, you see a reduction in gun crimes (assuming most homicides are gun crimes and most armed robbery is committed with a gun and not a knife or other weapon). It seems common sense that gun control resulted in that decrease in gun crimes. Why would you suspect it had to do with better police work? Or money not justifying the risk (why would that have changed) or more use of credit cards?

[quote=ucodegen]
A person considering using a weapon for a crime, has already considered that killing is ‘justifiable’ to achieve their ends.
[/quote]
This is a massive, and I believe erroneous, assumption. Armed robbers are probably generally hoping that they don’t have to kill anyone. And most of them probably wouldn’t unless it was their only way to stay alive or out of jail.