Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
i had a quick (not very detailed) look at that when i heard the same thing ... i believe it is raw figures ... the other thing in the study (not widely reported) was that the guns were not replacment guns, that none were the semi-automatic or automatic weapons that were part of the gun amnesty
regards david
The chap making those claims is a well known gun control advocate. You can make the numbers dance if you want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
I have seen reasonable estimates that there were about 30 million guns in australia at the time of the buyback. I know for a fact that many of the 1 million guns destroyed were unsafe rubbish and people took the opportunity to get paid to dump it. A lot of beautiful and signifigant historic pieces went into the furnace, or the staffs "unofficial" collections also.
Does anyone here actually believe we have less deliberate criminal gun use now than 15 years ago ? If so I invite you to visit western sydney and the gold coast.
Bushmiller (Paul)
I think these two statements are contradictory and in any event necessarily lead to increased shooting events.
I distinguish between deliberate gun crime and accidental or spontaneous incorrect use of firearms. The circumstances are different and trying to address both with the same action is like trying to stop bushfires and floods with one course of action.
The chap in the school massacre was not a gun owner. When he tried to buy guns he was denied. So far as that the system worked. He obtained his guns by stealing them from his mother. That part didn't work. Bryant supposedly did the same thing. Obtained guns from others.
We and the USA have laws addressing illegal possession use import of firearms. There is no point passing new laws because current laws are not enforced. This happens a lot because politicians love to look like they are doing something and legislation is cheaper than policing.
It's been said often enough, but I suppose it has to be repeated. When I was young everyone had guns. No one misused them, except criminals. We almost certainly have fewer guns in society now and they are much harder to get, yet we seem to have more gun crime and spontaneous misuse.
Howards gun laws were effective in mycase. They made owning my 13 lb .22 single shot target rifle so onerous I sold it and quit my sport. That BSA was literally far more dangerous as a club than it ever could be as a rifle, but I was clearly a danger to society and had to be disarmed. The recurve bow I now own, which requires no license, is obviously much less hazardous.
It may astound some people but gun owners have families friends and a sense of self preservation. Some are a tad off the wall just like any group in society, but the very great majority want a safe society as much as anyone. They (we) bristle when we hear nonsense being proposed that we know won't work but will make our lives harder.
But as I say conciliation and rational action don't win ratings nor elections.
I see the IPCC are busy finalizing their next work of fiction in Tasmania this week. Must be a full moon...
I've stayed out of this, because very little that gets posted on this topic changes anyones mind. However, I heard Andrew Neil being interviewed and his analysis makes a lot of sense - something that can't often be said about a former politician.
We all have our positions, so here's mine. I used to do a lot of shooting from the time I was a kid - hunting - and in the army, but have done hardly any since I got out, because I have other things to do. I have nothing against sporting shooting, and have happily made a stock for a target shooter's rifle. However, I also have a fear of guns in the community that can be a reservoir for criminal use, ie guns that may be easily stolen. I've previously done an internet search for figures that would justify either a stronger or laxer gun control position, and have found neither - or both. There almost seems to be a deliberate hiding of meaningful figures. However, it seems this study has had access to better & more recent data than previously available.
The salient points of the interview as I recall them are as follows:
The buy-back has saved about 200 lives a year. However, the greatest reduction has not been homicides but suicides, followed by spouse homicides.
Although the number of firearms in the community is now about the same as before the buy-back, the number per head of population is about the same as immediately after the population.
The firearms that are in the community are in fewer hands, with many owners licensed to have several guns. Unlike the situation before the buy-back, these owners are subject to testing, police checks and are required to keep the guns in secure storage.
Most of the owners now have a reason (farming, sporting etc.) for owning the guns, unlike in the past when they were one that was perhaps inherited, never used and available to be stolen in a household robbery.
I've posted a link to his paper below. I haven't read it yet, and it may not stand up to scrutiny, but as I said, he seemed to make sense.
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf
A most thoughtful post Alex and a very interesting paper.
What arise from this, to my mind at least, is that accessibility to firearms provides an easy way to commit either a homicide
or a suicide.
To commit homicide or suicide by other means than using a firearm requires planning and a degree of courage. This gives time
for thought and may well lead to people reversing the initial impulse or decision.
There is no second chance once the trigger is pulled.
While I'm sure this is factually correct when taken in isolation, it's a "half truth" as a whole. Yes maybe 200 less people committed suicide or killed a spouse with a gun, but the actual numbers of suicides and homicides did not really change significantly (from it's already decreasing trend) ... they just used a different "tool".Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Regardless of the method used, exactly how "easy" do you think it would be to kill yourself or someone else. It's not something a normal rational human beings would just "do". If it's an impulsive act then it's usually done with something close at hand, not something locked away in a safe (normally with the bolt and ammo stored in a separately locked safe/compartment).Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
It would be quicker for a person to pick up a knife, wine bottle, a car, etc and commit a murder than it would to get a firearm and do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
Vernov, I think the attraction of a gun for homicide is that you don't need to get up "close and personal"to commit the act.
Also the victim has little, if any time to react.
As for suicide, a gun is quick and painless.
Just my thoughts.
True assuming you are calm and lucid and a decent shot. I would argue that if impulsive, you are not thinking rationally and will grab whatever is at hand, or possibly just use your bare hands. If premeditated then regardless of the "weapon" used the chances are the victim will be taken by surprise (because the killer has planned the attack) and the chances of survival are low.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
I'm not sure that is top of mind for someone planning to end their own life. Like I mentioned, suicide rates did not drastically change after the buy back, they simply found other ways to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
Vernon, this is incorrect, according to Leigh. He specifically stated that gun deaths were not replaced by other methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
Fair enough Alex, but according to what I have read/researched on the subject, that (substitution of method) is exactly what happened. I guess the "truth" in regard to gun control is very clouded.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Alex, below is an interesting quote from here (highlighting by me):
Quote:
Responding to Neill and Leigh, The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia replied [53] that suicide by firearm has been decreasing steadily since the mid-1980s, but suicide by other methods such as hanging has not followed the same trend; that important assumptions of the work were not mentioned in media reports; that 93% of people replaced their seized firearms with at least one, if not more, to replace their loss; and recommended the work of Lee and Suardi, who reviewed almost 90 years of ABS data when making their conclusions, while Leigh and Neill chose to analyse only two five-year periods on either side of the 1996 buy-back.
The page also references quite a few other studies that indicate the gun laws had little or no effect on the established murder and suicide trends.
This is a little off topic but I will post it anyway as this gun debate seems to resonate here. A short history of the famous Second Amendment and the need for guns. It was never intended that everyone should be able to carry a gun for whatever reason they liked but so that organised militias would keep the slaves in check. The whole debate makes a lot more sense to me now. The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
More importantly there has been another school shooting, this time in St Louis, right near where my sister and her family are. Ihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/st-louis-business-school-shooting_n_2481733.html
I find this whole topic very interesting. When I was young guns were common in most households. I grew up in suburban Qld, and my mother and father were both sporting shooters. My father had a couple of rifles handed down from his family. My grandmother used to keep a shottie in her wardrobe. I occasionally got to shoot a rifle at a range or when we were out in the bush. Since then I've shot a firearm on one occasion, when I went clay target shooting as a team building exercise in the UK - which was great fun and I can see the attraction of it as a sport.
The events in the US are tragic, and I think their gun laws are just plain nuts. I think the NRA is now dominated by loonies unfortunately.
I've recently decided to take up pistol shooting as a hobby, so I've joined a club and gone through the quite difficult (compared to the US) process of getting a provisional licence. This allows me to shoot on one night a week at the club that I've joined, and only with the clubs guns for the first 6 months. I cannot legally buy a handgun during those first 6 months. I must also attend 12 sessions of safety training during that 6 month period, and every shooting session that I have during the first 6 months must be supervised. During the second 6 months, I am permitted to buy 2 pistols only, and must abide by the strict requirements to store them safely (and those requirements are very strict).
I don't have a problem with any of that - I think the safety requirements are an extremely good idea, and I support them completely. I do not ever want to be in the situation where a firearm that I own is responsible for causing anyone harm, least of all a member of my family.
After the first 12 months, provided I fulfil the requirements of my provisional licence, I can obtain an unrestricted licence, and then I am legally permitted to buy any number of pistols, provided I regularly use them in competitions (which means I need to have them for a reason rather than just to keep them in my nightstand!). I doubt that I will ever own lots of guns, but I am interested in learning about them and learning how to handle them safely and shoot accurately. I think I will find it an absorbing and fascinating pasttime.
I do not understand how any private citizen can justify owning an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon. That the US gun laws allow people to own such weapons is ludicrous IMHO...
Thoughtful post Bob.
Possibly one aspect none of us consider when we are talking irrational and/or ill-considered gun behaviour is that we are for the most part approaching the subject from a rational and reasoned position.
The perpetrators of atrocities and suicide victims to take couple of the at risk categories we have identified in previous posts do not behave in the same way as us. There is a component in their psychological make up that is badly damaged or even missing compared to the accepted norm.
Regards
Paul
I thought the Australian gun restrictions were in response to a number of mass shootings culminating in Port Arthur. A discussion about suicide rates only clouds the waters because we're talking about automatic and semi automatic weapons.
The only relevant question is - Did the rate of mass shootings drop after the introduction of tighter gun controls? If the answer is yes then they worked.