There were zero deaths in Kings Cross from falling off a chair, and zero deaths whilst getting out of bed. Similarly, nobody was struck by lightning in Kings Cross either.
In 2012, there were about 20 deaths per 100,000 people attributable to alcohol in NSW. Source is here:
Also, talking about misusing data, you're claiming that 20 deaths per 100k "attributable to alcohol" is due to violent assault. What a load of shit - the Australian homicide rate (from all sources) is only 1.1/100k. "Attributable to alcohol" basically means diseases - there aren't 4400 (22M/your rate) deaths across the country every year from violent assault, alcohol-related or otherwise. There's not even a tenth that number. Alcohol-deaths-by-violence are a rounding error compared to alcohol-deaths-by-disease.
Look at your own linked graphs sorted by age - do you honestly believe that 65-year-olds are dying from king hits at a rate five times greater than 20-year-olds? That 85-year-olds dying from such violence at nearly twice the rate as those 65-year-olds? Those are some pretty feisty nursing homes.
Here's a small hint: those laws weren't just introduced due to homicides, but also for assaults.
As for your last sentence, if you re-read what I said, you'll see "by itself". It was put there there along with "Australia has a problem with drinking and violence" to suggest that you need to argue with more than just what is actually a very few deaths. It's like you wilfully misread me.
As for "no you're not", do you mean you're not claiming that 20/100k are deaths from alcoholic assault? I can't see something else I said you were doing. Then why the hell did you bring it up? Who was talking about long-term effects of alcohol on health?
There is a problem with drinking and violence in Australia, but at the same time, 90 people over 13 years isn't all that many; by itself, it shouldn't be used to argue for new laws.
[1] http://www.news.com.au/national/the-weird-ways-australians-d...
[2] https://www.australiawidefirstaid.com.au/lightning-strikes/