NRA doesn't like Australia's Gun Stats

[Sceptic-PK]

There have been laws controlling firearm use since the nation was colonised in the 18th Century.

 

[marplots]

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.)

No, you are right. I actually have no idea what pulls the "I will kill a bunch of people" switch. I do seem to remember that in the US, some of the mass shooters had looked into previous mass shootings though. Maybe there is an element of contagion?

 

[Nessie]

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

Very sensibly the convicts transported to Australia were not allowed guns. You are wrong when you claim this gun possession just would not do. What was considered wrong was the misuse of guns and deaths. It was clear to Australians that who had guns was important for public safety.

You probably do know this, but I'll mention it anyway, the USA is the only country where public safety has been largely ignored.

 

[Polaris]

No, you are right. I actually have no idea what pulls the "I will kill a bunch of people" switch. I do seem to remember that in the US, some of the mass shooters had looked into previous mass shootings though. Maybe there is an element of contagion?

Or an element of seeing the celebrity treatment other mass-murderers got in the media.

 

[Cain]

How are Australians going to keep the forces of tyranny in check? How can they stop their government from listening in on phone calls? They can't. They're doomed.

 

[Shiner]

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.

Agreed, it's a murky subject. Ambiguous as it gets.

But 'free speech' hasn't reached 'implied right' status just yet. It needs to be further tested in the High Court. As it stands, we have a 'freedom of political communication' implied right, and that's what has been used in the High Court to test 'freedom of speech' issues.

 

[Nessie]

How are Australians going to keep the forces of tyranny in check? How can they stop their government from listening in on phone calls? They can't. They're doomed.

Joking aside the idea of civilian gun owners keeping America safe from tyranny is one reason why public safety has a relatively low priority.

 

[DDWW]

When Australia banned some firearms did people really turn them all in? Were they compensated the retail value?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Yes and yes. Of course you could never prove that ALL banned weapons were handed in, but that's hardly relevant.

 

[Cain]

Some people are so stupid they ACTUALLY believe that if, instead of leaving children toys, Santa gave adults loaded guns, violence would somehow increase. Of course, if we're being realistic, Santa can't do that because liberals would throw him in jail.

 

[GlennB]

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?

It confuses the issue somewhat. When we discuss the US 2A the word 'right' has a specific meaning that relates to the US Constitution. If we discuss Australian gun laws and take 'right' simply to mean no specific law prohibiting gun ownership - or certain classes of guns - then we're using the same word in different sense.

Enshrining a right in your legal or constitutional system is not the same as 'have never got round to restricting it'.

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

That sounds like extreme straw-clutching. In the UK, the "shock" of Hungerford clearly didn't make Hamilton think twice about Dunblane, nor for that matter has the "shock" of Sandy Hook changed anything in the United States.

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

It's unavoidable, given that - apart from (last time I checked) Mexico - pretty much no other country on the planet enshrines a "right to keep and bear arms" like the US does.

 

[Information Analyst]

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?

No. Substitute "recreational drugs" for "guns" and you'll see the absurdity of your suggestion. The lack of legislation for something does not make possesion or use of it a "right."

 

[Dcdrac]

How are Australians going to keep the forces of tyranny in check? How can they stop their government from listening in on phone calls? They can't. They're doomed.

owning a gun is not going to stop the US govt listening in on you.

Also if a tyrannical regime ever came to power in the US it is highly unlikely the civilian population would not be able to mount a strong armed fight without outside assistance for very long.

 

[Iamme]

Alcohol is not guns....but prohibition is still still prohibition...so i researched US alcohol prohibition and found that despite the black market, alcoho consumption was halved during Prohibition and even remained for a number of years after it was lifted.
Logic tells me all crimes commited using guns also would go down, if guns were banned. Just because it be harder to get one, not every gun owner would be resourceful nor daring to tap any black market.
We are lying to ourselves if we dont think gun crime would go DOWN.
Mass murder would go down as im sure not ALL murders would try to make bombs, crash gas-filled car, steal an airplane to crash, use knives, hatchets and swords, or sling molotov cocktails, use flame throwers, barbeque propane tanks, etc. Some, yes. But the numbers would go down..............
If you post something like ``prove it``, i will just smile because i will know you are trying to argue for that sake. I stated a fact about Prohibition and my own common sense tells me numbers will not go away....but they will go down.
Now let me say, i am NOT anti gun. I have a gun and want to keep it.
Some of the arguments made against the OP seem like they are merely hatched out of a desire to retain gun rights.
That being said, i`d also like to point out that we cant assume Australian numbers would rival our numbers even if we did exactly like Australia did, simply because we are not Australia, geographically, nor of the makeup of the people and the groups we have here.
Regarding my prior last sentence, a person could speak volumes. Literally. There may be more ways that more people in the US could more easily obtain a gun easier than say they can in Australia. I dont have any facts on this, but simply a gut feeling based on our country borders Canada and Mexico, and we have had lots illegal pot and drugs say enter this country, and we have more population with probably more fringe groups that could perhaps get ahold of guns illegally.
Then there is this point; even if gun crimes went down some, or even a statistical significant number, which were NOT made up for using other weaponry, at what statistical number are we willing to give up our rights?
If numbers were to likely go to 0, plenty people would likely be willing to give up their rights. But how about for a 30% reduction? 50%. 70%.

 

[Iamme]

I read in posts above that there have been no mass shootings since 1996? But that bolt-action rifles are legal to those who pass the screening?...in Australia.
I am not a hunter nor follow deer hunting weaponry and cant recall if say most 30.30`s or 30.06`s are single load or pick up a shell from a cartridge.
But regardless, its interesting that not a sole went into a place of employment or school and used one of these to take out a boss or teacher and then try to kill a few more? None?
Arent many of at least our US mass murder/ attempt types willing to die or plan to die during their attack anyway?
So why any concern that they are not say armed with better armament?, when they figure they are going to die or commit suicide anyway?
This leads me to wonder then if the Australian rate went down more because of the screening process, and or the numbers of bolt-action rifles they even allow?
That, along with a substantially lower population.

 

[Polaris]

I read in posts above that there have been no mass shootings since 1996? But that bolt-action rifles are legal to those who pass the screening?...in Australia.
I am not a hunter nor follow deer hunting weaponry and cant recall if say most 30.30`s or 30.06`s are single load or pick up a shell from a cartridge.
But regardless, its interesting that not a sole went into a place of employment or school and used one of these to take out a boss or teacher and then try to kill a few more? None?
Arent many of at least our US mass murder/ attempt types willing to die or plan to die during their attack anyway?
So why any concern that they are not say armed with better armament?, when they figure they are going to die or commit suicide anyway?
This leads me to wonder then if the Australian rate went down more because of the screening process, and or the numbers of bolt-action rifles they even allow?
That, along with a substantially lower population.

If you're asking if .30-30s and .30-06s are muzzle-loaders or breech loaders, they're breech loaders, with fully-enclosed rounds of ammunition.

Anyway I thought the gist of the reason was that Australia was better than the US.

 

[WildCat]

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

There was an identical drop in the USA, which expanded gun rights in the same time period.

Do you have any evidence at all that Australia's new gun laws prevented any homicides?

 

[marplots]

There was an identical drop in the USA, which expanded gun rights in the same time period.

Do you have any evidence at all that Australia's new gun laws prevented any homicides?

I haven't seen any yet. I don't think those graphs posted in this thread prove anything at all.