It"s on!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

I would love to know what you base that on John, as the majority of the research I have read contradicts that.

---

I don't think it does, but then it depends which way you look at the figures. Firearm deaths had been trending down before Port Arthur, however since then there have been no massacres and the rate per hundred thousand has reduced. Raw numbers should be considered against population growth.

How much signifigance do you place on a downward trend as you would have to think the reduction would have been likely to stabilise at some point, also spouse deaths showed a reduction and the suicide rate from firearms does appear to have reduced. There are a number of conflicting statistics you can find proponents that will say there has been a 50% reduction in deaths on one hand and no change at the other extreme. I am firmly of the view that the Howard changes resulted in less deaths I am also aware that if you go looking you can find internet references that in some cases don't agree and others that do. It is difficult to filter out the distorters of the truth and the mistaken it would be nice if someone with full access to reliable statistics could provide something more acceptable to all.

The bulk of firearm deaths have always been due to suicides (hence why suicides get focused on when talking about the effects of the gun buyback) and if you look at the trend in firearm suicide deaths, there has been a constant downward trend that started before the buyback and has continued since. Here is a simple graph from the Australian Institute of Criminology (which was appointed by Howard to monitor the effects of the buyback).

Attachment 250137
You can see that even over this relatively short period that suicides have fallen at a fairly consistent rate, and that doesn't take into account the INCREASE in suicides by other methods that occurred after the buyback. The buy back seems to have done nothing to alter the trend.

Sorry, but those figures, just as a simple example, prove that statements like "there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives" are not fact based.

In 1996 the year of Port Arthur there were 516 firearm deaths accross Australia, this equated to 2.82 deaths per 100,000, in 2010 the raw number had reduced to 236 or 1.06 deaths per 100,000. The number had been far worse in 1979 at 4.71 per 100,000 or 685 deaths. There was certainly a downward trend occuring but the pace of the downward trend doubles after the buyback. There will be other factors which impact such as attitudes in society, tighter licencing, the way we store weapons and so on. There will be a number of factors that account for the drop in deaths but there is no doubt that the impact of the buy back including the way our view of firearms changed in the wake of Port Arthur plus the removal of rapid fire weapons have all contributed to a fall in deaths.

There is no evidence to support the view that people find other ways to murder, quite the opposite. The impact on suicide is different, other methods of despatch such as hanging show an increase but the increase doesn't fully offset the reduction in those who haven't put a gun to thier head. Firearms deaths do not require much planning the extra time taken to get the rope etc means the victim has had time to reconsider. It also reduced the number of spousal murders for much the same reason.

The graph in the previous post ends in 2001 it is worth pointing out that in 2001 firearms deaths sat at 326 or 1.68 per hundred thousand, there has been a 50% decline in that rate since then. The buyback would have had it's largest impact immediately following its introduction, so what explains the current levels. It has to be a combination of attitude and availability as well as policing of at risk gun owners. I don't pretend this is a simple situation but equally the buy back and a raft of other changes over the last couple of decades have made Australia a much safer place to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

There is no evidence to support the view that people find other ways to murder, quite the opposite.

---

Here is a quote from some research done in 2010 by Melbourne Uni's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. I highlighted the relevant section for you.

Quote:

---

Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

---

The truth is out there if you wish to look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

So why shouldn't we look at the overall impacts of the laws? When you do you see there is a case to remove some of the more overly restrictive sections of the laws as they don't benefit society, cause frustration to users and wastes a huge amount of public money.

---

Just an observation.

So far the following posts on Australian gun laws have not convinced me that there should be any relaxation of our laws, in fact it has convinced me that we should get even tougher on gun owners and users.

If that frustrates some users so be it, if they don't like it then emigrate to the USA where they can have all the guns they desire.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Here is a quote from some research done in 2010 by Melbourne Uni's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. I highlighted the relevant section for you.



The truth is out there if you wish to look.

---

OK then, if it wasn't the NFA that produced a substantial reduction in deaths then what was it? I'm not being obstinate but I can't see other major factors that account for the decline nor can I find anything that has anything concrete that provides alternatives that can discount the existence of the NFA. I'm with Sturdee there is something about the way we view firearms in this country and something about our cultural attitudes that is working. I would hate to see us water down anything to do with the current regulations and it wouldn't bother me if they were tightened.

Has anybody asked a successful suicide why he done what he done with what he done it?


"Lies Damn lies and statistics"
Statistics prove what the person paying the researchers want them to show or they don't see the light of day.

I don't know if I am getting older and wiser or just more cynical.
Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

OK then, if it wasn't the NFA that produced a substantial reduction in deaths then what was it?

---

There wasn't a "substantial reduction in deaths" and as already mentioned there also wasn't any huge shift in the total number of suicides.

John, I know you truly believe that the buy back had some huge impact on deaths and general public safety, but the bulk of the research doesn't support that notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

There wasn't a "substantial reduction in deaths" and as already mentioned there also wasn't any huge shift in the total number of suicides.

John, I know you truly believe that the buy back had some huge impact on deaths and general public safety, but the bulk of the research doesn't support that notion.

---

We'll agree to disagree I guess, one thing we can agree on though is that in Australia something positive has happened in terms of both firearm deaths and the murder rates in general and that is a very good thing for our society hopefully the trend will continue for some time to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

We'll agree to disagree I guess,

---

Yes I guess we will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

... one thing we can agree on though is that in Australia something positive has happened in terms of both firearm deaths and the murder rates in general and that is a very good thing for our society hopefully the trend will continue for some time to come.

---

Yes it is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

The bulk of firearm deaths have always been due to suicides ...

---

Discussing suicide deaths is irrelevant in this conversation. Someone who wants to kill themselves is going to do it regardless of what's available. Criminals generally shoot criminals so they are also irrelevant.

Mass shootings are what's important here because we're talking about innocent deaths in large numbers. I go back to my question which was answered before. There have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996. This can only be attributed to one thing and that's the gun restrictions.

I feel I should also add that I grew up around guns on the farm and have spent the last 19 years in the Navy. I don't have an issue with them but I do have an issue with people introducing irrelevant information to a discussion. Vernon, please don't see this as a go at yourself because it isn't. I'm referring to the American pro gun debate which is pushing that all of their guns are at risk which clearly isn't the case. The only weapons which are being discussed are their so called assault weapons. Personally I would simplify the discussion and make it automatic and semi automatic weapons and remove the term assault from the discussion altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corbs

Discussing suicide deaths is irrelevant in this conversation.

---

The conversation turned/deviated a few pages back to the effectiveness of Australian gun laws and you can't get the true picture of how effective they are/aren't without taking into account suicides.

If "this conversation" has specific limits then maybe everyone needs to know what they are.

EDIT: I hasten to add that I did not raise the Australian gun laws in this thread. I did however attempt to correct statements I believe to be incorrect/inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

It is well demonstrated that the best way to stop gun crime is to forcibly arm everyone.

---

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

"Criminals generally shoot criminals so they are also irrelevant."
This is the attitude I can not get my head around to me it is as nutty as saying we all should be running around with automatic assault rifles at the ready.
They (the crims.) need to be disarmed as other people get caught in the cross fire, and they shoot up the wrong house etc.
Anyway I will leave it at that, I can not under stand it And it has been put forward by a few posters in a couple of threads.
:?May be some one has been doing some brain washing.:?:?:wink:
Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

---

You are quite right, there is no evidence to support the view that arming everyone will stop violence, there is a lot of information that points to the opposite. The prevalence of guns in the community has a strong correlation to gun deaths. The most obvious is the reference back to Switzerland where men of military age usually have a firearm at home. What is often overlooked is that before 2007 they only had 50 rounds of ammunition and that was checked and had to be accounted for. Since 2007 they are no longer able to have ammunition and there have been unsuccessful efforts to remove the firearm as well. Also not reported is that while the murder rate is very low the suicide and family deaths from these guns lifts that rate to above some other countries.

All the same let's see this "evidence" and if it's produced let's hope it is from a reliable and independant source and not picked from the jaundiced rantings or spin of some NRA style ratbag.

This should give both sides some thing to mull on

"Accidental gunfire at three gun shows around the United States on Saturday left five injured, authorities said.

Three people were injured in Raleigh, North Carolina, at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the state fairgrounds, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people. State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long said a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance.

Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.

Long said the shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged.

In Indiana, police said a 54-year-old Indianapolis man was injured when he accidentally shot himself while leaving a gun show.

State Police said Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds. Loaded personal weapons are not allowed inside the show.

Cozee was hospitalized for treatment. Police say the shooting was accidental and no charges will be filed.

Meanwhile, authorities in Ohio said a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

Police Chief Pat Berarducci said it appears the bullet struck the floor and the man was wounded in the arm and leg. Berarducci said the man was taken by helicopter to a Cleveland hospital. His condition was not immediately known."

No comment.

Should be the safest place there is Hugh according to the NRA.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well I would like to see the evidence for this. If it's "well demonstrated" then the evidence should be easy to produce.

---

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.

I typed out along post the other day then lost it on this stupid stupid laptop. I still don't have my desktop back so I'm keeping this short-ish :) Please be patient with the spelling mistakes, this machine is painful to use.

There are some great thoughtful posts above and some pretty silly ones.

Pops: I had friends in the 80's that shot pistols and those regulations you mention sound familiar. I am prepared to believe the regs are stricter now but owning a pistol was always difficult.

I never advocated free gun access nor necessarily loosening the rules we have. My point all along is that we should take a rational approach and test the results.

Statements like "joe blogs doesn't need an assault rifle" are total BS. It's really easy to damage someone you don't know. As I've said before we used to be a community based society, now we are an anonymous society and with that seems to have come an enthusiasm to mount the indignant soap box and persecute strangers because you perceptive them as a threat/sinner/whatever.

Joe Bloggs doesn't need his assault rifle ? Well you don't need your car. Cars kill far more people than guns throughout the western world. They create pollution and cost a bomb in infrastructure. I say we should ban them.

How many of you are finding excuses to save your precious private transport ? Oh I'm sure you have the arguments ready...but the bottom line is banning the gun doesn't hurt you, but banning the car does. This is the essence. I am not for a moment suggesting we shouldn't ban the gun, my point is we should be mindful and respectful of the damage it does to other australian citizens who have committed no crime.

I think it is absurd to seek new laws because the ones we have aren't enforced. Legislation is cheap, enforcement isn't. Legislation lets the politician look like they are doing something and appeases the transient indignation of the vocal groups, but proper policing of the laws costs money and earns no votes. This is the essence of the "law abiding gun owner" argument.

One of the great absurdities of Howards gun laws was banning semi auto .22's but allowing semi auto pistols. I know people who literally sawed off the butts of their .22's and registered them as pistols, then added clip on butts. Absurd.

All government action hurts someone. It is done for the greater good, but it should be done with that harm in mind and good rational thought put into the plan and it's impact tested rationally and honestly after the fact.

Alcohol prohibition in the US was enacted by do gooders with the same simple arguments this debate attracts. People went broke, people died. Much evil was done. It is possible that if the implementation was more reasonable and less fanatical/idealogical it might have been a good thing. Instead extremists hijacked the process and ruined the result. There are extremists on both sides of this, and much obfuscation. My point was is and always will be that we should approach this honestly and rationally.

We don't live in a perfect world but that doesn't mean we can't strive for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.

---

Which places were these Damian, and is it still mandatory to carry a gun in public?

I am aware of one place, Kennesaw-Georgia, where it is mandatory for every head of a household to own and maintain a gun and ammo therefore, but I am not aware of a place where it is compulsory to carry a gun.

I would be intersted to find out more Damian.

Here is another, Virgin-Utah, still not compulsory to carry it though.:no:

Spring City-Utah is considering a mandatory gun ownership law.

From memory one was in Texas. I'm sorry but my access is so bad just now I'm not prepared to go look. I know that's a cop out and I apologize. You have no idea how many corrections I have to make even to this little post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

There are a couple of places in the states that passed laws making carrying a gun mandatory in public. Everyone had to go armed or risk a fine. Gun crime plummeted to almost nothing. In fact a whole range of crimes dropped.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Here is another, Virgin-Utah, still not compulsory to carry it though.:no:

Spring City-Utah is considering a mandatory gun ownership law.

---

Mandatory gun ownership, totally different to mandatory carrying of guns, which is what Damian asserted.


This thread has drifted so far from the OP it's a joke. Originally it was about the US gun lobby's reaction to proposed new gun laws and that's where it should stay. Australians attitudes toward guns are so different than those in the US that it's almost as if we're on a different planet. We can have a civilised debate on gun control, obviously the Americans can't. I've even invited American forum members to join the debate https://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/ge...cticut-163605/, but they can't even discuss it here.

As far as John Howard's gun buyback scheme is concerned it wasn't initiated as a result of gun suicides, gun crime or gun violence in general. It was initiated in response to the Port Arthur massacre, and there hasn't been another gun massacre in Australia since. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

Mandatory gun ownership, totally different to mandatory carrying of guns, which is what Damian asserted.

---

Totally agree GJ, that assertion by Damian, not backed up by fact, came totally out of left field.

I agree with you that this thread has run its' course and it may be time to close it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Totally agree GJ, that assertion by Damian, not backed up by fact, came totally out of left field.

I agree with you that this thread has run its' course and it may be time to close it.

---

I'm not saying that it should be closed, I don't agree with closing threads unless things are turning nasty. I'd just like it to get back on track.

The report on the 'accidents' at the gun shows seems to indicate an ambivalent attitude on the part of the gun lobby. Seemingly it was against the rules to carry a loaded gun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

As far as John Howard's gun buyback scheme is concerned it wasn't initiated as a result of gun suicides, gun crime or gun violence in general. It was initiated in response to the Port Arthur massacre, and there hasn't been another gun massacre in Australia since. End of story.

---

But it did nothing to affect suicide rates or gun crime, and that it what a lot of people also attribute to these laws. If it was only about massacres then why do we have all these laws that restrict non auto and non assault firearms ... end of story.

I find it fascinating that there is so much conflation between the Australian and US situations in this thread. That fact that we have so many opinions about a country we dont live in and so little agreement about our own situation. A heady muesli of opinion informed by international media. More fascinating than the subject sometimes. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

But it did nothing to affect suicide rates or gun crime, and that it what a lot of people also attribute to these laws. If it was only about massacres then why do we have all these laws that restrict non auto and non assault firearms ... end of story.

---

Because any gun is dangerous, and surely the less proliferation the better. The vast majority of people in Oz neither need nor want a gun. Those that do require a gun can get one (or two as ozhunter explained in the other thread), but justifiably, they have to jump through a few hoops and then wait for 28 days before acquistion. It then has to be stored and transported under strict conditions, and subject to "random" inspections.

I've said it before, but our current laws seem to be about right. I feel safe enough. If, as somebody suggested, a law was passed so that everybody in the USA had to be armed and carrying then I would not feel at all safe in the USA and I think it highly unlikely that i would ever go there.

Vernon, I'm a bit confused about your platform: are you saying that our laws are too restrictive or that there should be no changes in the USA? Or both, or something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Vernon, I'm a bit confused about your platform: are you saying that our laws are too restrictive or that there should be no changes in the USA? Or both, or something else?

---

Well it's obvious to me that the US system doesn't seem to work, but other than that I don't really have any strong opinions on it or how to fix it. That is something they need to sort out.

I do however have strong opinions on the Australian system and am more than willing to have a rational discussion about them, as I feel a lot of non-shooters (and probably shooters as well) don't really have a full understanding of the Australian situation ... most of what people "understand" seems to be driven by the media.

As I have said before there are tangible benefits to the current laws - licensing of shooters (the police checks and safety training required) and the safe storage requirements (a no brainer really, but it's good that it's "law"). On the flip side there is also a huge waste of police resources and public money in the "permit to acquire" and longarm registration part of the laws. These provide no tangible benefit to society and in my opinion should be scrapped.

Fair enough.

I have a sick feeling that the USA won't be able to improve the situation all that much because the horse has already bolted.

I wouldn't be overly concerned about wasted Police resources (in particular) - any govt department you care to name has waste. The one the gets me the most is spending the rest of their various budget allocations (on anything) at the end of the year simply so that they can get the same allocation for the next year.

Re our gun laws - is there something that you are missing out on as a result?

EDIT: there's already been a remarkablt civilised debate on our laws in previous thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

there is also a huge waste of police resources and public money in the "permit to acquire" and longarm registration part of the laws. These provide no tangible benefit to society and in my opinion should be scrapped.

---

In that case increase the fees for the permits, licences and inspections to such an extent that it becomes a source of revenue to the country. All other permits and licences are revenue raising related, eg driving licences.

Then it provides a tangible benefit to society of increased revenue and it is no longer a drain on resources. IMO gun owners are getting it too cheaply.:((


Peter.

In regard to the wasted resources and public funds, I personally don't think it should be ignored where ever or whenever it occurs. Once it starts getting ignored, it just start to become standard practice and a lot harder stamp out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Re our gun laws - is there something that you are missing out on as a result?

---

It's not so much that as it is the pure frustration of the process. Now if the process was there for the ultimate benefit of society, then that's fine, but it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

In that case increase the fees for the permits, licences and inspections to such an extent that it becomes a source of revenue to the country.

---

But why? That is purely taxing something or the sake of taxing it. The benefit I refer to is in regard to public safety ... that "apparently" is why the gun laws are as strict as they are.

What I am suggesting will save public money and resources and have no impact on public safety ... sound like win-win to me.:2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

But why? That is purely taxing something or the sake of taxing it. The benefit I refer to is in regard to public safety ... that "apparently" is why the gun laws are as strict as they are.

What I am suggesting will save public money and resources and have no impact on public safety ... sound like win-win to me.:2tsup:

---

I would concur, there is no point taxing for the sake of it. Many firearms are owned by farmers and often used for little more than putting down the odd animal including possibly also the odd neighbours dog that has trangressed. The storage and licencing rules are a good thing, fees should be affordable if you wish to have proper compliance. I sign a lot of firearm renewals most are your standard legitimate owner but every now and again you come across someone who surprises you and you would think has no need for a firearm. At least we have a system that minimises those who should not be in possession of a gun and tries to ensure it is mainly those with a legitimate purpose that own a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

But why? That is purely taxing something or the sake of taxing it. The benefit I refer to is in regard to public safety ... that "apparently" is why the gun laws are as strict as they are.

What I am suggesting will save public money and resources and have no impact on public safety ... sound like win-win to me.:2tsup:

---

Increased resources through higher taxation and fees and the same public safety sounds like a much better win-win to me. :2tsup: :2tsup:

Might have to send an email to my MP and suggest this.


Peter.

Here we go again. Only five dead this time. Multiple weapons including a military style assault rifle.

Well Governments are always looking for new and imaginative ways to tax people.

Let's just hope your local member gives your suggestion all the care and consideration it obviously deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Well Governments are always looking for new and imaginative ways to tax people.

Let's just hope your local member gives your suggestion all the care and consideration it obviously deserves.

---

He probably would as at the time he was the Minister in the Howard's government in charge of implementing the gun laws and still is a front bencher in the federal parliament.

His state ofsider, and protege, is a Minister in the Victorian government.


Peter.

Well then, you better get a typ'n ...