Author Topic: for Lazs: Crime rates down in NZ (Read 2231 times)

Vulcan · « **on:** August 25, 2004, 07:31:09 PM »

Looks like we don't need to be armed to the teeth to get crime down, whats your excuse?

Crime rate down - Police Commissioner
26 August 2004

Reported crime dropped by 4.7 per cent in the year to June, while the rate of resolved crime increased from 43.7 per cent to 45.1 per cent, Police Commissioner Rob Robinson said today.

Statistics released today showed a drop in the crime rate of 6.5 per cent per 10,000 people, he said in a statement.

It was a struggle to find anything negative in the figures, which came on top of a downward trend for several years.

The resolution rate was the highest in 20 years, Mr Robinson said.

Perhaps the most pleasing result had been in Counties Manukau, which recorded the largest drop in overall crime of 16.5 per cent, followed by Central (Palmerston North, New Plymouth and Wanganui and rural areas) with 12.8 per cent, Auckland City 11.8 per cent and North Shore Waitakere with 5.3 per cent.

"The three Auckland district results reflect a major turnaround in the battle against crime in the most populated region in the country," he said.

Dishonesty offences were down 6.7 per cent, largely due to a reduction in offences of car conversion and theft, and fraud. While the number of dwelling burglaries was up slightly, the overall burglary rate per 10,000 people was down 2.2 per cent, continuing a downward trend.

Recorded sexual offences dropped 4 per cent, while recorded violence dropped 1 per cent, halting a run of violent offending increases during the previous three years, Mr Robinson said.

The 46 murders recorded during the year were the lowest number since 1998 and compared to 57 the year before.

"While these are significant events, New Zealand is fortunate these numbers are as small as they are," the statement said.

An apparent increase in drugs and antisocial offences of 2.9 per cent was the result of reclassification of liquor ban breaches. Adjusting for that, drugs and antisocial offences were down 6 per cent.

Slightly more than 5000 liquor ban breaches were recorded, reflecting significant use of liquor bans by local authorities.

Non-cannabis drug offences increased from 3088 to 3978, an increase of 28.8 per cent, driven by the increased manufacture, use and policing of amphetamine type substances including methamphetamines.

During the year, 190 clandestine laboratories had been closed down.

Curval · « **Reply #1 on:** August 25, 2004, 07:44:00 PM »

They must have made gun ownership mandatory then?

NUKE · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2004, 07:49:25 PM »

Mexico has no crime because guns are illegal.

SLO · « **Reply #3 on:** August 25, 2004, 08:15:16 PM »

no need of guns unless your job asks for it, all the rest is about insecurity.

A Gun is a tool, not a necessity Nuke.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2004, 08:15:29 PM »

Ohh....to live on an island...(sigh...)

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #5 on:** August 25, 2004, 08:59:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Mexico has no crime because guns are illegal.

Hehe, Mexico just defines "crime" differently than we do.

demaw1 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 25, 2004, 09:38:34 PM »

Vulcan.....
Heres our excuse, these facts must have went under you radar.

It has been reported everywhere today that mexico has shipped 10 percent of its people to America, all poor and needy.
It is expected another 2+million by next summer.

Much of the drug trade is south and comes here causing at least 3,4 problems. We have huge gangs the pc people wont lets us do anything about, and our leaders both dems and repb. high and low are to chicken to go against the pc people.

Now wasnt that easy? Oh and here a tiny bit more.

2 congressmen from colorado , 1 from each party, has said from there info they believe 1000 terrorists have come thru mexico and canada and are in colorado now.

1 senator and the district attor. of texas said from there info they believe 20000 terrorist have crossed the border and are in the border states this year.

All the border states except calif. are giving this warning.

now that is the tip of the ice burg and you think us lawful types should have a 9 iron to protect us lol.

Not me I am to chicken.

Tell you what SLO, come on over I take you for a walk down rosecrans blvd, say about 7 00 pm. I will bring my unnessassary gun and you bring your 9 iron. We will see who lives the longest you or me. Thing is we will both die.

lazs2 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2004, 08:09:02 AM »

So you are saying that it is because you are forbidden to have an object that your crime rate is so low? Imagine if all those sheep were armed eh?

I don't think you can compare the U.S. to your allmost a country.
lazs

Curval · « **Reply #8 on:** August 26, 2004, 08:28:56 AM »

I seem to recall you commenting on Austrailian gun laws and using that to back up your arguments. Now you can't so you immediately refer to it as an "almost a country".

lol.

lazs2 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 26, 2004, 08:36:20 AM »

Where did I compare australia to the U.S.? please find that... while you are looking for the evidense of me being a biggot...

you make a lot of accusations of who I am and what I say but don't back em up.

I will say that one reason to even mention australia or england over nz tho is because in the former you have a gun culture that has a dramatic ban of firearms. It is somewhat logical to look at before and after stats. To simply look at nz's crime rate is fine but if there were no gun laws that would account for a rise or fall then it is not germain to the topic.

You might as well give the number of sheep as a cause.

are there less firearms in nz this year than last or more? how many times wiere they a factor in defense against crime or used to cause crime? To simply take the stats from some lightly populated island and say "see... they are forbidden the right to defend themselves and look how happy and crime free their country is".

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #10 on:** August 26, 2004, 08:51:13 AM »

Where did I say you compared Austrailia to the US?

You used Austrailia as an example of gun control not working as crime went up after the ban.

In NZ's case crime is down despite a lack of guns, yet your answer is "You aren't a real country".

That all.

As far as the bigot thing goes, I quoted the examples that gave me that impression in that thread. You chose to ignore them and then brought up your girlfriend and your grandchildren as examples of why you can't be biggoted.

That simply doesn't wash. It is the old "I have a black friend" argument.

Your attitude towards women is effectively biggoted.

How does your girlfriend and grandaughter feel about the fact that you want to roll back hundreds of years of progress and make them totally subservient to men, at least as far as their ability to vote goes?

lazs2 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 26, 2004, 08:57:48 AM »

curval.. you are being obtruse... it is a british thing I think...

I have only ever used australlia and england in a logical manner... pre and post dramatic and draconian gun bans. very simple really.

do I think and island is capable of having small crime rates even if they don't have firearms? yes.. I think it is poissible.

you have never once shown an example of me saying anything showing that I wish any minority to be treated differently because of their race.

I asked you to after you accussed me of it but you declined. None of your examples had anything to do with biggotry.

Is there such a thing as gender biggotry? It is difficult to keep up with this stuff. Is it still ok to say men and women are different from each other?

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 26, 2004, 09:02:25 AM »

Oh... my girlfriend sees the loigic of my thinking and my grand daughter is too young. I think they would laugh at you for calling me a biggot tho. I believe having relatives and girlfriends that are of a minority is somewhat different than merely saying that "I have black friends". it is not even an arguement... it is an obviopus fact about my life that anyone who is around me will see. It is something I live on a daily basis.

what is your claim to being unbiggoted? that you want to give special rights to those who are inferior to you and incapable of making it on their own?

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #13 on:** August 26, 2004, 09:06:58 AM »

You are the one being obtuse .

I had already provided examples of your "not so subtle" remarks from that particular thread.

You chose then, and continue to, ignore them.

As far as the "gender bigorty" goes....I just checked. Chauvanism is defined as bigotry.

You don't just think we are different...you want to remove basic rights, such as the vote. THAT is chavanism and therefore bigotry.

You asked for proof...you now have it.

lazs2 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 26, 2004, 11:06:29 AM »

websters..... "chau•vin•ism (sh÷‚vƒ nizƒm) n.1. zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory. 2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause. [1865–70; < F chauvinisme = chauvin jingo (after N. Chauvin, a soldier in Napoleon's army noted for vociferous patriotism) + -isme -ISM]"

don't see bigot in there anywhere..

but...Ok... if there is such a thing as a gender bigot then I probly am one. But....

That is not what you said is it? You were talking about race. You can not give me one example of me asking for people to be treated differently based on race.

perhaps we need to define bigotry and racism? since it is you who wish to treat people differently based on race... It appears to me that you are the biggot and not me.

The only meaningfull definition of biggotry would be the willingness to treat people differently (under the law) based on race.

lazs