It"s on!!

[Sturdee]

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.

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

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


Peter.

[FenceFurniture]

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

[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.

[Sturdee]

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.

[Vernonv]

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

[AlexS]

I think you may draw your own conclusions from these figures. The report that they come from, by economists Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill, shows that the buy back has saved about 200 lives a year.
Suicides.jpgHomicides.jpg

[Vernonv]

Alex,
They are interesting graphs. Here is my take (cause I know you want to know what I think about it ).
Suicides : Firearm suicides have been on a fairly consistent downward trend since before the gun laws were introduced.
Homicides : Pretty much the same for homicides, except for the blip in 96 caused by the Port Arthur massacre.

When looking at the graphs also keep in mind the different Y axis scales used ... but it sure makes the figures look even more impressive.

The issue I have with Leigh's "200 lives a year saved" is that he derived this number from 10 years worth of figures (plus see my comments below about bias). The work of Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi used roughly 90 years worth of data. Here is the final paragraph from one of their papers

Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

I have to admit that there is some research that I feel is highly likely to be biased - that of Leigh's (because of the span of the data used and the fact he is a federal politician), that of Chapman (he was founder of some gun control organisation even before 96) and that of McPhedran and Baker (because they are both linked to shooters organisations).

[Vernonv]

I was just doing a little more reading on Leigh's paper in which he claims that 200 lives are saved per year. It's interesting how this statement has been latched onto and is being used somewhat out of context. Here is what his report actually says (highlighting is mine):

For a firearm withdrawal equivalent to Australia’s buyback, using quite conservative point estimates, our estimates suggest that over 200 firearm deaths per year—mostly suicides—would be averted in a population roughly the size of Australia’s.
... This estimate is very sensitive to the assumptions, however, and in particular the assumption of no method substitution.

Not exactly what happened in the real world, is it.

[FenceFurniture]

From Wiki:
"Thirty five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles."

Whichever way you look at it, there have been no mass killings since 1996. Maybe the changes were not all required, maybe it's tougher than required, but so far it's mission accomplished.

I think the buyback cost $500mill which was apparently raised by a 0.2% increase in the Medicare Levy, and of course we'll never know how many lives have been saved in potential mass killings that haven't happened. If the above is correct, then there was no cost to the Govt, and all taxpayers contributed about $100 each (based on a taxable income of $50,000) spread over 12 months (not sure how long the increase was in place for).

Given the fact that no mass killings have occurred since, I for one am glad to have shelled out $100 ($2/week).

Vernon, the changes to our laws were never going to please everyone, but they were done with the best of intentions, and to the best of the Govt's ability. Axe grinding (or bullet packing) on that topic is surely for a different thread, when you consider the OP - it's about the USA/NRA.

[Vernonv]

Vernon, the changes to our laws were never going to please everyone, but they were done with the best of intentions, and to the best of the Govt's ability.

I don't disagree at all. I just think that laws need to be reviewed periodically to ensure they are doing their intended job efficiently and adjusted accordingly. We should always continue to strive to make things better and more efficient, not just accept the status quo.

Axe grinding (or bullet packing) on that topic is surely for a different thread, when you consider the OP - it's about the USA/NRA.

I agree with this also ... for my part in this I have tried (and possibly failed) to limit my posts to responding to others, rather than raising new issues.

[corbs]

I'm getting dizzy going around in the same circle over and over again... time to unsubscribe from this thread.

[Bushmiller]

Before Corbs disappears down to the back shed, may I sumarise from the threads posted?

1. Far too many interested parties have their own agenda and pursue this to the exclusion of general safety and that of innocent children in particular. Too many want to cut the baby in half, which goes to show their humanity.

2. In Australia the gun buyback seems to have worked, but this may just be coincidence as it is quite apparent that the statistics, as usual, can be manipulated to suit the story of almost anybody. Part of the problem is that the situation is dynamic and many other factors are involved such as safety awareness, security of weapons storage, background checks, cooling off periods etc..

3. In Australia there have been no further incidences of mass murder since Port Arthur (so far).

4. Fear-Mongering is at it's right royal best on issues such as this.

5. The American situation is vastly different to Australia.

6. The Americans have chosen to fall back on their second amendment but have either through ignorance or in some instances calculated mis-quotation forgotten the original and rather insidious reasoning behind the right to bear arms.

7. The lobbying, and consequent political clout, of vested interests in the US is mind blowing compared to the situation in Australia.

8. When the Americans look at comparative situations around the world, instead of asking where they are going wrong, they say they are America, we don't want to be Australia (for example).

9. Most of America thinks that this is how life is and should be as the people are fundamentally insular ( as opposed to it's government which wants to stick it's interfering nose fair up every anus in the world, particularly if it thinks it has oil or some other economic benefit.) Ask an American man in the street where he thinks Australia is if you want some funny answers.

10. Maybe we should let the US get on with their own affairs and make bloody sure they don't get any more influence here in Oz (Airbases etc.. Don't tell me....I'm too late?)

Along with corbs, retiring from the thread .

Regards
Paul

[RETIRED]

Closing remarks folks? This thread will be closed tomorrow night.

Thank you for no hysterical outbursts.

[A Duke]

Closing remarks folks? This thread will be closed tomorrow night.

Thank you for no hysterical outbursts.

It has been an interesting thread. I have my own opinions that do not fit in with either side, may be because I come from a different back ground or you guys Aus and US have had it too easy.
(No offence meant)
Regards

[AlexS]

I think Bushmiller's summary is pretty spot on. Everyones interpretation of the statistics is clouded because accurate statistics just aren't available. I'm sure they have been collected, so you have to wonder whose agenda it suits not to have them available.
Whatever works or doesn't work here, we can't apply it to America. Completely different country, different circumstances, different people.