NRA doesn't like Australia's Gun Stats

[WildCat]

Oh for pity's sake, what a pitiful argument.

Are you going by total population or diluting the stats by the square miles of empty lands on the continent?

Total population. What would square miles have to do with it?

 

[WildCat]

LOL, 'rights', that is just so dumb.

So substitute privileges if it makes you feel better. Australia hasn't reduced their homicide rate with their gun laws. And which mass shooting events prior to Port Arthur couldn't have been accomplished just as easily with a bolt action rifle? Some of them took place over a period of days.

 

[WildCat]

No, it hasn't and we never had the gun culture of the Americans. Ownership of a gun isn't seen as a right by us, it's just a gun.

After Sandy Hook the NRA were promulgating garbage about our gun control laws not working. With 13 mass shootings between 1980 and 1996 and none since regulation, their argument is quite specious.

How many of those 13 could have been prevented with the new gun laws? At least no one is claiming the homicide rate has been affected by the laws, you're clinging to mass shootings even as you ignore Monash.

 

[WildCat]

Armed confrontation between the military and the public hasn't happened in the last century.

If you ignore that unpleasantness with the natives, but I guess they were considered the same as wild animals until the 1960s so therefore not "the public". Just varmint control, right?

Thank FSM we do not have the equivalent of the Second Amendment, where protesters can turn up with weapons of murder.

Yeah, that happens all the time in the USA, if you define "all the time" as "never".

 

[marplots]

How many of those 13 could have been prevented with the new gun laws? At least no one is claiming the homicide rate has been affected by the laws, you're clinging to mass shootings even as you ignore Monash.

I think they did have a real drop in homicides though. When did they stop shooting aborigines? Probably a huge drop back then.

 

[Information Analyst]

It might have had some very good benefits, but I don't think your data shows (or can show) anything important about mass shootings - in Australia, they are simply too rare.

No, the chart shows that they were rare in the 1 years to 1996 (n=11), and then non-existant for the following 17 years.

 

[Information Analyst]

When did firearm possession there cease to be a right and become a privilege?

Just because one bunch of vested interests made it it a "right" in one place 200 years ago, didn't and doesn't make it a "right" everywhere.

 

[marplots]

No, the chart shows that they were rare in the 1 years to 1996 (n=11), and then non-existant for the following 17 years.

Yes, non-existent, statistically, is a type of rare. Others have said that the change in the laws would not have reduced the numbers before 1996, is that true?

I think a better explanation might be that the shock of the 1996 incident made mass shootings unpalatable - with or without any change in the law.

And that's the real problem with the stats - there's no way to differentiate my theory from yours. For instance, there's no control group. What you might look for is someone who would otherwise have gone on a rampage but couldn't get a gun to do so. Or, a recent mass attack that didn't involve a gun - some alternative weapon would do. Unless the claim is that the change in the law cured all the bad actors somehow?

What exactly is the claim being made? What is the take home message I'm supposed to get from the graph?

 

[Ranb]

Just because one bunch of vested interests made it it a "right" in one place 200 years ago, didn't and doesn't make it a "right" everywhere.

That is obvious. I do not recall comparing rights in Australia to rights in the USA at all in this thread other than to claim the Australian Constitution was much different than the American one.

Ranb

 

[Shiner]

How many of those 13 could have been prevented with the new gun laws? At least no one is claiming the homicide rate has been affected by the laws, you're clinging to mass shootings even as you ignore Monash.

Whether you include Monash or not, it was 11 years ago. Going by population, the U.S should have had 1 or 2 to our none in that same period.
The actual figures are horrifically out of proportion to the population statistics.

That's because we don't have an endemic gun culture.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

How many of those 13 could have been prevented with the new gun laws? At least no one is claiming the homicide rate has been affected by the laws, you're clinging to mass shootings even as you ignore Monash.

LOL, to prevent mass shootings was the reason for the legislation and Monash is hardly worthy of note.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

So substitute privileges if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't make me feel anything, but I appreciate your feigned concern. People can still own guns if they so desire. My sister just got her handgun licence, no big deal.

Australia hasn't reduced their homicide rate with their gun laws

If you take into account the rise in population figures, it has been reduced.

shooting events prior to Port Arthur couldn't have been accomplished just as easily with a bolt action rifle?

You're missing the point. A Semi-Automatic weapon allowed Martin Bryant to kill a large amount of people in a very short time. Port Arthur brought about a change in public opinion and Semi-Automatic weapons aren't required for vermin control.

Some of them took place over a period of days.

Key word: 'some'

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

I think they did have a real drop in homicides though. When did they stop shooting aborigines? Probably a huge drop back then.

The 'legal' or 'sanctioned' massacre of the indigenous was limited to the colony in Tasmania. Any other massacres were illegal, and I only know of one in the early 20th century, the Kalkadoon near Mt. Isa and charges were brought against the property owner IIRC.

 

[a_unique_person]

That is obvious. I do not recall comparing rights in Australia to rights in the USA at all in this thread other than to claim the Australian Constitution was much different than the American one.

Ranb

From what I have read, the Australian Constitution was partly modeled on the American one.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

From what I have read, the Australian Constitution was partly modeled on the American one.

True, the panel examined many constitutions and they devised a hybrid taking the best elements of the British and US constitutions.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think a better explanation might be that the shock of the 1996 incident made mass shootings unpalatable - with or without any change in the law.

Unpalatable to whom?

Their mass killers just lost the taste for such actions?

Maybe if we make mass killing less cool we could just move away from it over time?

(I know it is just one word, but it struck me odd. Sorry to pick it out like that.)

 

[Xulld]

Ah, begging the question, how we love thee.

No you see this is a much abused form of discursive interactions called "asking a question."

I know I know its very subtle stuff, perhaps too much for this forum . . . .

 

[Sceptic-PK]

No we don't have an implied personal freedom of speech.

First, let’s get the easy part out of the way: Australia does not have an explicit First Amendment equivalent enshrining the protection of freedom of speech in our Constitution. So where does this leave us? Well, it wasn’t until 1992 in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (ACTV) 177 CLR 1 where the issue of free speech was significantly dealt with.

In ACTV the High Court had to consider whether there was an implied Constitutional right to free speech in regards to governmental and political affairs. The majority in the High Court held that there was indeed an implied freedom of political communication in the Constitution, basing their decision on the representative nature of our democracy.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx

eta: I do realise it's not quite that simple, given subsequent decisions.

 

[jimbob]

When did firearm possession there cease to be a right and become a privilege?

Ranb

Ah, begging the question, how we love thee.

No you see this is a much abused form of discursive interactions called "asking a question."

I know I know its very subtle stuff, perhaps too much for this forum . . . .

It is begging the question because it presupposes that there was a period when firearm ownership was a right.

The non-begging version would be:

Was there a time when firearm possession had been a right, and if so, when did it change?

 

[Ranb]

I'm suggesting there was a time when persons living in Australia had the right to own firearms back when there were no laws prohibiting their possession. But then someone came along and decided that this gun possession stuff just would not do and created laws limiting it. Does this make any sense or not?

Ranb