In the 20 years up to Port Arthur, there were 13 mass shootings (defined as 5 or more deaths.) Since then (1996) there have been none.Quote:
Originally Posted by corbs
Printable View
In the 20 years up to Port Arthur, there were 13 mass shootings (defined as 5 or more deaths.) Since then (1996) there have been none.Quote:
Originally Posted by corbs
Trouble is the laws and restrictions reach much further than just auto and semi auto weapons. They affect every type of firearm and every firearm user.Quote:
Originally Posted by corbs
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.
Not if you miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
My wife (who is a disability support worker) had a client who tried to suicide with a hand gun and didn't quite pull it off. He is now blind and has a sever acquired brain injury. He will need the services of a support worker for the rest of his life, he's only 35 years old.
Which laws would you relax if given the opportunity? I personally don't understand how a BB gun can be in the same category as a rim fire rifle but outside that I don't really see many issues with what we currently have. I don't see any justification for automatic, semi automatic or pistols outside of law enforcement/military/security but I'm willing to be swayed by a sound argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
I think Australia is now at the polar opposite to the US with regard to gun laws. Anyone suggesting relaxing gun laws here would probably be treated with similar contempt to those proposing stricter laws in the States.
I see benefits to the licensing of shooters and the safe storage requirements, however the whole "permit to acquire" and long arm registration provide no tangible benefits.
Canada last year removed their longarm registration requirements from law as they found that the system did nothing ... it was never use to solve a crime and yet cost millions of wasted dollars a year to maintain.
Oh and one other thing I think they need to do is increase the penalties for firearms offenses.
We need to stop penalising law abiding users and start cracking down on criminals.
There was an interesting interview on 7.30 with Leigh Sales tonight. She interviewed Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America.
Rather than me comment, what do you think? I would however say two things. Firstly that I am indebted to him for making me realise that an assault rifle is a defence weapon. Secondly, people with the surname Pratt should be most careful what they say...........
For those of you that missed the interview, the transcript is below. Not a long one:
7.30 - ABC
Regards
Paul
I was very unimpressed with Pratt, he danced with the truth and applied all the spin he could, I also was indebted it would seem you can't use an assault weapon for anything but defence. trouble is to many probably believe just that.
America is like here, before the gun buyback suicide made up roughly half the gun deaths, they have about 15 deaths per hundred thousand we have about 2.5 I think (correct me if I'm wrong on the last one). The statistics really do need careful analysis and i doubt anyone here has either the depth of information or the resources to do that properly. However there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives. the real problem is vested interests are to willing to distort figures.
I was a keen shooter before the buyback and although peeved at the loss of a couple of firearms I came to the view it was for the best. the blokes with the bolt action guns were more careful shots than the mug with a 10 shot magazine and tended to have cleaner kills and a bit safer to be around. I think getting rid of the semi auto was a good thing.
The salient point is that if there is a gun in a USA household you are more likely to shoot yourself or your spouse than ever defend your property. in other words gun ownership doesn't protect it costs. Countries with high levels of gun ownership have higher levels of gun crime. Don't make the mistake of using the Swiss as an example, those of military age may have a military weapon at home but they can't have the ammunition.
I would love to know what you base that on John, as the majority of the research I have read contradicts that.Quote:
However there does seem no doubt that Howards gun buyback saved a lot of lives.
His apologia for assault rifles as being defence weapons depicts some bloody awful actualities in a so-called civilised society. Is their democracy only held together by the private possession of such weapons?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
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.
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:
Originally Posted by johnc
The truth is out there if you wish to look.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.
Just an observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
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.